
Class _ 

Book.. 



GopyrigM°_ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

A DISCUSSION BETWEEN 

C. E. W. Dorris and Miss Nora Yount (Christians) 

and 

A. E. Clement, W. H. Lovell, Chas. W. Galloway, 

and Geo. W. Nackles (Methodists). 

APPENDIX 

by 

C. E. W. Dorris, 

Editor and Publisher. 



First Thousand. 



West Nashville, Tenn. 

C. JS. W. DORRIS, PRINTER. 

1910. 






Copyright, 1910, 
by 

C. B. W. DORRIS. 



©CU261260 



INDEX. 

PAGE. 

How to Order 

Introductory 1-3 

Part First — Clement, Presiding- Elder 4-29 

Part Second— Galloway, the Bishop . 30,31 

Part Third — Lovell, Pastor 32-54 

Part Fourth— "Why I Left the Metho- 
dist Church" 55-58 

Part Fifth— Nackles, Pastor 59-280 

The Phoenix Letter— Dorris 89-104 

"Mode of Water Baptism"— Nackles 129-159 
Reply to "Mode of Water 

Baptism"— Miss Yount 160-193 

Reasons for Leaving- the Methodist 
Church Answered — Nackles; and 

Miss Yount's Reply to Same . . . 194-251 
Declining- Further Discussion — Nackles 25 f >-2f>0 

Miss Yount's Closing- Article .... 261-280 

Appendix— Dorris 281-289 



HOW TO ORDER. 

All orders for this book should be sent direct to 

C. E. W. Dorris, 5605 Morrow Road, 

West Nashville, Tenn. 

Price, $1.00. 



INTRODUCTORY. 

The discussion between Miss Yount and Messrs. 
Clement, Lovell, and Galloway was published in 
the Gospel Advocate by the writer in 1906-1907- 
Mr. Geo. W. Nackles read part of said discus- 
sion, after which he opened a correspondence 
with Miss Yount on December 19, 1906, which 
was kept up until he declined further discussion 
on September 30, 1907. There have been many 
calls for the correspondence between Miss Yount 
and Messrt. Clement, Lovell, and Galloway in tract 
form; but since the correspondence has been greatly 
enlarged by the discussion between Miss Yount and 
Mr. Nackles, it has been decided to give the entire 
correspondence to the public in book form. The 
whole correspondence published in this book is 
real, and not visionary, as some supposed when the 
first of it appeared in the Gospel Advocate. It ac- 
tually occur red . The author of this Introductory di- 
rected and assisted Miss Yount in her correspond- 
ence. The following was published by the writer 
in the Gospel Advocate, as an Introductory, in 1906: 

"About the middle of November, 1905, I began a 
m f ting on Paradise Ridge, some twelve or fifteen 
miles from Nashville, Tenn. Miss Nora Yount, of 
Goodlettsville. was teaching: school in the commu- 
nity at that time. She was sound in the Methodist 
faith and so prejudiced against the church of Christ 
that she refused to attend the meeting until late in 
the week, though she was boarding- with one of the 
brethren whose family attended the meeting regu- 



*JS INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. I 

larly. She attended the meeting- only two nights. 
At the close of the services the first night the 
young- lady was present, I met her, and the next 
evening- I had a conversation with her at her board- 
ing- house relative to Bible doctrine. Realizing- she 
was above an averag-e in intellect, and believing I 
could lead her out of darkness into lig-ht, I soug-ht 
a correspondence with her, which soon led her to 
see the true lig-ht of the g-ospel, and also led to a 
correspondence between her and her pastor and pre- 
siding- elder, and an effort to correspond with the 
bishop. The Methodists had a quarterly meeting 
at Miss Yount's home congregation. During this 
meeting Mr. Clement, the presiding elder, delivered 
a discourse in which he said: 'There is no more 
scripture for any subject than there is for infant 
baptism.' Miss Yount, taking for granted the 
presiding elder was correct in his statement, wrote 
me to know why I opposed infant baptism, when 
there is so much scripture sustaining it. I made a 
clear-cut argument against it, and closed the argu- 
ment with an offer to give ten dollars for a scrip- 
ture that would show the time when and the place 
wherr- Christ or the apostles authorized or practiced 
infant baptism, and gnve her the privilege to gfet 
the presiding elder to furnish her the scripture if she 
failed to find it. After a close search for the scrip- 
ture authorizing infant baptism and a failure to 
find it. Miss Yount wrote me to this effect, inclos- 
ing a copy of a letter she had written to the presid- 
ing elder, asking him to furnish her scripture war- 
ranting his statement relative to infant baptism. 



\N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

This correspondence soon grew to be very interest- 
ing-; and realizing- that Miss Yount was gaining a 
great victory for the truth in her correspondence 
with the presiding- elder, I then sugg-ested that she 
correspond with the pastor and the bishop relative 
to infant baptism, sprinkling, and baptism because 
of the remission of sins. The pastor made an ef- 
fort to defend the doctrine, but the bishop made no 
reply. The correspondence beg-an and ended with 
the presiding- elder. The correspondence with the 
pastor and bishop took place during- the corre- 
spondence with the presiding elder; hence we cannot 
publish the correspondence in its re g-ular order, but 
will publish it by publishing- each letter of each in- 
dividual separately. On Saturday morning-, Septem- 
ber 29, 1906, I baptized this young- lady into Christ. " 

C. E. W. Doeeis. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Part First. 

Discussion between Hiss Nora Yount and 

Mr. A. E. Clement, Presiding Elder 

in the n. E. Church, South. 

BETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., April 30, 1906.— Dear 
Brother Clement: I have a friend who opposes 
infant baptism, and he offers me ten dollars in 
gold if I will show him in the Bible where Christ 
authorized infant baptism and one example of it. 
He also gives me the privilege of asking- any one 
I wish to assist me in finding" this scripture; and 
remembering- that you said at our last quarterly 
meeting-, "There is no more scripture for anything- 
than there is for infant baptism," I appeal to you 
for help. Now, what I want you to do is to refer 
me to those passag-es where I can find authority for 
infant baptism that is indisputable. I feel quite 
sure that it is there somewhere, but I do not know 
just where to find it. 

Trusting- that I may hear from you soon, and 
thanking- you in advance for the favor, I am, 
Your sincere friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LBTTBE PROM PHE PRESIDING ELDER TO MISS YOUNT. 

Clarksville, Tenn., May 1, 1906.— Miss Nora 
Yount. Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Mv Dear Miss Nora: 
It will not be difficult to point out scriptural reasons 
for holding- to infant baptism, but your trouble in 
convincing- vour friend will be that he wants to be 
the judg-e as to when logically defeated, rather than 
a searcher for truth. For instance, several of the 
immersion papers have a standing- offer, so it is re- 
ported, of five hundred dollars to any one who will 
produce another meaning- for the Greek word "bap- 
tizo" than that of "immersion;'' and yet they 
have never surrendered the money, though Greek 
lexicons are full of "sprinkle" as one of its meanings, 
and several who started out to trip us have come 
to us instead. The trouble is, they are to be their 
own judges as to when convinced and will never 
acknowledg-e it, althoug-h the facts of the world's 
scholarship put them wholly on the defensive; for 
that man does not live who can prove immersion as 
exclusively the only scriptural baptism. I have no 
objections to giving you, in brief, the proof; but I 
forewarn }~ou, you will not convince your friend 
nor win vour ten dollars in gold. 

1. All members of the "kingdom of God'' are fit 
subjects for baptism. Christ says the children are 
members of the kingdom of God (Mark 10: 14); 
therefore children are fit subjects for baptism, 
already being members of that kingdom. It would 
be a strange shepherd that would shelter the old 
sheep from the storms of winter and ravages of the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 6 

wild beasts, and shut out the lambs; equally strange 
would be that church that would house, feed, and 
protect older people from Satan, and leave the 
children exposed to Satan, the world, and its trials, 
affording- them no protection. The children go in 
with us by baptism. 

2. It is often said: "Place your hand on the com- 
mand of Christ for the baptism of children." It is 
proper to retort: "Place your hand on a single in- 
stance where he commands women to be baptized." 
You cannot do it; and yet no one dares exclude the 
women, and correctly so, for there are historical in- 
stances of their baptism. Equally true are there 
historical instances of childhood baptisms. See the 
Philippian jailer and his household (Acts 16:33), 
Stephanas and his household (1 Cor. 1:16), Lydia 
and her household (Acts 16:13), and others. Now 
note carefully that these households were baptized 
on the faith of the head of that household, and not 
on their own personal faith. This Jewish custom 
of a man's taking- his household with him into what- 
ever faith he accepted prevailed in the Christian 
church in relation to baptism as well, as herein 
proven. 

3. Baptism in the Christian church took the 
place of circumcision in that of the Jewish church. 
They both stand as an outward sign of an inward 
condition of the heart, for exactly the same thing. 
"Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter." (Rom. 2:29.) "Know ye 
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death? . . . That like 



7 W IX TKKKSTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

;is Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- 
ness of life." (Rom. 6:3,4.) These two verses on 
the two rites point to the same thing — spiritual re- 
generation. Jewish children were circumcised, and 
so were Christian children baptized, as signs of 
their union with God and Christ. 

4. Historv proves the above points as holding 
in the davs of the apostles. "The practice of in- 
fant baptism was, evidently, the policy of the 
church in the time of Origen and Cyprian, the 
former of whom declares it a matter of apostolic 
tradition. The practice was also quite current in 
the time of Tertullian, who opposed it on the 
ground of the inexpediency of placing young and 
innocent children under the heavy responsibility of 
the baptismal covenant." (Sheldon's "History of 
Doctrine," Vol. I). Origen (185-253 A.D. ) writes: 
"According to the usage of the church, baptism is 
given even to infants." "For this cause it was 
that the church received a tradition from the apos- 
tles to give baptism even to infants.' 1 Tertullian 
(160-240 A.D.) opposes infant baptism, not on the 
ground of its not being* historical, but "that it is- 
too important; not even earthly goods are intrusted 
to infants." Justin Martyr (138 A.D.) declares, 
that there were among Christians in his time 
•'many persons of both sexes, some sixty and some 
seventy years old, who had been made disciples to 
Christ from their infancy," and who must, therefore, 
have been baptized during the lifetime of some of 
the apostles. He says: "We are circumcised by bap- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 8 

tism, with Christ's circumcision." History, there- 
fore, proves the practice followed by the apostles 
and early church of baptizing- infants as set forth 
in 1, 2, and 3, as stated above. 

If any one of these points you do not understand, 
write me, and I will take pleasure in illuminating- 
them. Or if any difficult points confront you, write 
me, and I will do my best to help you out. Write 
me what your friend says. 

Sincerely your friend, 

A. K. Clement. 



LETTER PROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER. 

Goodlettsville, Term., June 15, 1906.— Dear 
Brother Clement: Yours of May 1 received and 
contents carefully noted. I wish to thank you, 
first of all, for your kind offer to illuminate the 
points you make and to help me out in difficult 
points confronting- me, for I am in need of the ful- 
fillment of both of your promises. 

But before placing- my difficulties before you, I 
wish to say I fhink your idea of my friend want- 
ing- to be judgv as to when logically defeated is 
entirely wrong-, for I fully believe he is honest and 
sincere and wants nothing- but the truth. I also 
believe he would be willing- for me to be "judg-e ,T 
as to whether or not I am entitled to the ten dol- 
lars in g-old, and feel confident he will make g*ood 
his promise when I can produce scripture authori- 
zing- infant baptism; but, of course, I am not enti- 
tled to this until I can produce it, 

I have searched the Bible for one single example 
of infant baptism, but fail to find it. You do not 
satisfy th demands of my friend. In your letter 
you give historical proof only, and I am wanting' 
Bible proof. His offer is not for historical proof, 
but for Bible proof. True, you introduce three 
scriptures (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:13) as 
examples of infant baptism; but these do not entitle 
me to the ten dollars, since none of these were bap- 
tized but believers. Infants cannot believe, hence 
were not baptized. You say: "Note carefully that 
th >s • households were baptized on the faith of the 



AN INTE RESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 10 

head of the household, and not on their own personal 
faith." Now, if you will give me Bible proof 
for this statement, I will get the prize and perhaps 
win my friend to the truth. The scriptures you 
offer do not, to my mind, prove that any were bap- 
tized on the faith of the heads of the family; but 
perhaps I have overlooked the point in the Bible 
which proves that some of the members of the 
families were baptized on the faith of the heads of 
the household, and not on their own personal faith. 
I need some "illumination" here. Please give me 
chapter and verse in the Bible that proves your 
statement. If infants were baptized on the faith of 
the heads of the family, then where is the authority 
for baptizing- infants of unbelieving- parents? 
Would you baptize infants whose parents do not 
belong- to the church? If not, do not our churches 
protect the sheep and leave the lambs exposed to 
the wolf? Why debar them from the Lord's table? 

Your third arg-ument is based on baptism taking- 
the place of circumcision. If this is true, where is 
the scripture for baptizing- girl babies, since circum- 
cision was never applied to any except the males? 

Your first arg-ument in favor of infant baptism is, 
they are in the king-dom and fit subjects for bap- 
tism. You close this arg-ument with these words: 
"The children g-o in with us by baptism." My 
friend says you contradict yourself. He says you 
arg-ue infants should be baptized because they are 
in the king-dom, and then contradict yourself by 
the statement, "The infants g-o in with us by bap- 
tism." I cannot meet my friend's arg-ument here, 



11 AN INTEEEESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

and hence must ask 30U to harmonize the two 
statements so I can meet it. He also asks me for 
our scripture for sprinkling-. Can you furnish 
this? 

The retort of women not being- commanded to be 
baptized is overturned by my friend, who introduces 
scripture which shows that both men and women 
were baptized (Acts 12:8), also the baptism of 
Lydia (Acts 16:15). Now, he produces two ex- 
amples where women were baptized and demands 
one example of infant baptism. Will you please 
give me one Bible example where infants were bap- 
tized? I am anxious to find such an example, not 
merely for the sake of the ten dollars, but I am 
anxious to g-et the truth before my friend. 

Trusting- that you will favor me with an early 
reply, I am, Yours sincerely, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER. 

Nashville, Tenn., July 23, 1906.— Dear Broth- 
er Clement: Some time ago I addressed a letter 
to you at your request and in reply to yours 
of May 1. I did this in all g-ood faith, be- 
cause I was searching- for Bible truths relative to 
some points of doctrine our church teaches. 

I have a friend who called the practice of infant 
baptism in question, and asks me to give authority 
from the Bible for the practice. I was born in a 
Methodist home, rocked in a Methodist cradle, reared 
by Methodist parents, and would have been 
sprinkled in infancy (seven years of age) had I not 
slipped out and hid the morning old Brother Rooker 
came to my father's home for the purpose of sprin- 
kling me and two other children. I have been 
organist in the Methodist Church since I was thirteen 
years of age. I joined the Methodist Church at 
seventeen, and have been an active worker since 
that time. I have been taught from infanc}^ that 
infant baptism was authorized by the Lord, and 
when my friend made me this offer I thought it 
would be an easy task to find plenty of scripture 
warranting the practice of infant baptism; but, to 
my utter surprise, after a close search, I failed to 
find a single scripture authorizing the practice. 
You being a brother of high standing, also our 
presiding elder, which makes you next to the high- 
est authority in our church, and remembering, too, 
that you said at our last quarterly meeting in a 
discourse that "there is no more scripture for any- 



13 W" 1NTKKKSTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

thing than there is for infant baptism," I at once 
appealed to von for Bible authority for your state- 
ment. To this you replied immediately, setting* 
forth your claims for the practice of infant bap- 
tism; but, to my surprise, you failed to set forth a 
single scripture authorizing- the practice. You 
asked me to write you what nry friend said, also 
promised to help me out if any difficult points con- 
fronted me. After my friend read your letter and 
commented on the same, there were several difficult 
points confronting- me, and, complying- with your 
request, I write you what my friend said, placing- 
my difficulties before you and asking- you to "illumi- 
nate" the points according- to promise. 

Up to the present I have received no reply from 
you, which, of course, is a surprise to me; but this 
is not as great a surprise as is the fact that when 
you saw my father some days ag-o you told him 
that the reason you had not answered my last letter 
was because I had introduced thing-s you could not 
discuss with a lady, thereby leaving- the impression 
on my father's mind that I had crossed over the 
line of decency. My dear sir, I introduced no new 
subject, nor asked you to explain anything- but 
what you introduced. Baptism coming- in the place 
of circumcision was introduced by you; therefore if 
any one has crossed the line of decency, it is you. 
If the subject' is of such a nature that it should not 
be discussed between a lady and a g-entleman, then 
you crossed the line and treaded on ground a gen- 
tleman should not hive treaded on when you in- 
troduced the subject. Not only is this true, but 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 14 

you knew I wanted your argument to place before 
my friend; and when you introduced the subject, 
you thereby advised me to introduce the subject 
to, and discuss it with, my gentleman friend. 
Why would you advise a lady to do something 
you would not do yourself? Why do you advise 
a lady to introduce the subject to, and discuss 
the subject with, a gentleman friend, and then 
when she writes and asks you to give your 
authority for baptizing- female babies, since none 
were circumcised, go to her f-'ther and try to make 
the impression on him that she had introduced a 
subject a lady should not introduce to a gentleman? 
It seems to me that if any one has any reason for 
complaint or any cause for insult or anything- to re- 
port, I am the one. I would sug-g-est that if you 
cannot afford to discuss the subject with a lady, do 
not introduce the subject to her nor advise her to 
introduce it to a gentleman any more; and if you 
should do so, do not stoop so low as to denounce 
her for taking- your advice. 

It is my honest opinion that the question and 
facts I put before you put you to flig-ht — that you 
were wholly unable to answer a sing-le point, and 
that you went to my father with the matter for a 
twofold purpose. The first, to have an excuse for 
not answering- me; and, the second, to create a 
prejudice in my father's heart against me and to 
influence him to stop me from searching for the 
true light of the gospel of the Son of God. I can- 
not understand why infants should be baptized be- 
cause they are in the church, rnd then go in with 



15 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

us by baptism. If they are in the church before 
baptism, then pray tell me how they can g"o in by 
baptism. 

There are some thing's relative to the household 
baptism that I do not understand. First, Christ 
authorized the disciples to baptize believing- peni- 
tents; therefore, if they baptize infants, they did 
something- unauthorized by the Lord, from the 
simple fact that infants have no faith, neither can 
they have sins to repent of. Second, how do you 
know these households had any infants in them? 
To prove the practice of infant baptism by the 
household baptism, you must show, in the first 
place, that infants were in the households, and 
also that they baptized unbelievers. The scriptures 
you cite me show that there were none baptized 
but believers, hence none were infants. Third, 
how do vou know these infants were baptized on 
the faith of the heads of the households? Where 
does the Lord authorize such a baptism; and if this 
be true, where is the authority for baptizing 
infants of unbelievers? 

You say: "Strangle would be that church that 
would house, feed, and protect older people from 
Satan, and leave the children exposed to Satan, 
the world, and its trials, offering- them no pro- 
tection." What more does our church offer 
them than other churches, except a little sprinkling- 
of water which is forced on them and which they 
receive unwillingly? Thev are debarred from 
the Lord's Supper and are not competent to 
receive spiritual teaching-; so I do not see that the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 16 

children in the Methodist Church are looked after, 
shielded, or protected better than children not 
sprinkled. 

Besides this, in baptizing- infants you transpose 
the commission and do the very thing- you accuse 
others of doing. In the commission we have teach- 
ing-, faith, repentance, and baptism. In the prac- 
tice of infant baptism we have baptism, teaching-, 
faith, and repentance. Our people accuse a certain 
relig-ious body of teaching- "water salvation" — that 
they baptize people without repentance and chang-e of 
heart. Is it not a fact that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, teaches and practices this doctrine, 
since it baptizes infants which have neither faith, 
repentance, nor change of heart? Since water is 
all they get, is it not a "water salvation?" 

You said: "If any of these points you do not under- 
stand, write me, and I will take pleasure in illumi- 
nating them. Or if any difficult points confront 
you, I will do my best to help you." This is the 
second time I have complied with your request. 
My difficult points are before you; and if you will 
keep your promise and give me the scripture which, 
shows the time when, and the place where, Christ 
authorized infant baptism, or that the apostles 
practiced it, I will give you the ten dollars in gold. 
If you fail to do this, your statement, "I forewarn 
you, you will not convince your friend nor win your 
ten dollars in gold," will prove true. 

My address is 402 Twelfth avenue, South, Nash- 
ville, Tenn. Yours truly, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



l.KTTKK FROM THE PRESIDING ELDER TO MISS YOUNT. 

Clarksville, Tenn., August 15, 1906.— Miss Nora 
Tount, Nashville. Tenn. — My Dear Miss Nora: 
Your recent letter came to hand and was ex= 
amined carefully, as was also jour former one. 
My intentions were from the start to answer your 
letter item bv item, but mv business over the 
district filled up all my time and made it impossible 
to do so promptly. I have been away from home 
on my work for the past month and more, so that 
you can readily see these delaj-s necessarily have 
occured. Furthermore, I hardly know what to write 
you or how to present it in the best form. When I 
wrote you, I did so as to a Methodist, and had no 
thought of running- up against a controversy, for 
which I have no taste and even less patience. I am 
always anxious to help a truth seeker; but when one 
puts himself up for controversy, it is well known 
that w T e Methodist preachers haven't time for that 
sort of thing-. And, to my surprise, instead of 
reasoning carefully on the subject, you set yourself 
in the place of your friend and used his arguments 
in controversy against the ones shown you. 

As for the arguments used by me, though they 
were hurried!}- put, they stand against the contro- 
versy of ages as a Gibraltar of faith for the great- 
est churches and the greatest scholars of the world. 
I quote you some of them: "As to the antiquity of 
infant baptism, it is admitted by Baptist writers 
themselves that it was practiced in Tertullian's 
time i A.D.200 ."' ( McClintock and Strong's Cyclo- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 18 

pedia, Volume I, page 648.) ""V\ hole he toeholds 
were sometimes baptized, as those of Lydia, Crispus, 
the jailer, and Stephanas; and it is probable that 
there were children in at least some of these. . . . 
According- to the ideas then prevalent, tht heed of 
the family represented and summed up tht family, 
. . . and it would have seemed an unnatuial thing 
that the father should make a complete change in 
his religious condition and that his children should 
be excluded from it. Moreover, the analogy of cir- 
cumcision would lead Jewish converts to have their 
children baptized. Had there been this marked 
difference between the two rites — that infants were 
admitted to the Jewish covenant, but not to the 
Christian — the difference would probably have been 
pointed out; all the more so, because Christianity 
was the more comprehensive religion of the two. 
There is, therefore, prima facie ground for believ- 
ing' that from the first infants were baptized. And 
this position is strengthened by g-eneral declarations 
of Christ himself: 'Suffer the little children to come 
unto me; forbid them not: for of such is the king- 
dom of God' (Mark 10:14), . . . where there is no 
intimation that children were exempt. On the con- 
trary, the condition of the children is given as the 
ideal for entrance in o the kingdom. (Matt. 18: 
3.) ... That baptism involved admission to 
the church hardly needs to be more than stated. 
It was an instrument for this very purpose, analo- 
gous to circumcision. The recipient of baptism, 
like the recipient of circumcision, is admitted to a 
new external covenant and new spiritual privileges, 



l l » AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

and is thereby pledg-ed to new duties. To say that 
a person is baptized is to say that he has been ad- 
mitted to the Christian communion." (A. Plum- 
mer, in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, pag-es 
242, 243. ) I could quote you scholars of like 
character by the hour to show that it is accepted 
and held and practiced by the most careful Bible 
students of the world. However, as you want my 
own arguments, I will formulate them. 

(1) It is admitted that children are the subjects 
of redeeming* grace, and on death do not enter 
heaven because of their Christian descent or the 
piety of their parents, but because of their personal 
connection with Christ, by whose rigiiteousness the 
free gift is come upon them unto justification of 
life. If there be any for whom Christ did not die, 
such are obviously ineligible to baptism, which is 
the exponent of those great benefits which flow 
from the redemption in Christ. But since the free 
gift has come upon all (infants included), there 
can be no reason for excluding- any from the sig-n 
and seal, except such as exclude themselves by their 
obstinate impenitence, and infants are not of that 
number. No one on this earth is outside the king-- 
dom, except such as exclude themselves by volun- 
tary departure therefrom. And if he ever g-ets 
back ag-ain, he does so by becoming- a child ag-ain. 
Christ's teaching-s at this point are unmistakable: 
"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not: for of such is the king-dom of God. " 
(Mark 10:14.) And ag-ain: "Except ye turn, and 
become as little children, ve shall in no' wise enter 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 20 

into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3.) 

One of your questions as to what a child has to 
repent of, and so why baptize him, smacks of bap- 
tismal regeneration, a Romish doctrine exploded 
years ago. People are not baptized as a means of 
washing- away their sins, but because their sins 
have been washed away. 

And you ask how a child is to believe, stating 
that only believers were baptized. To be sure, 
the preaching of Jesus was to adults; but he did it 
with the understanding that when the parents be- 
lieved the new doctrine, naturally they would 
teach it to their children as they arrived at years 
of comprehension. The same line of work was 
done in instructing the children as was followed 
by the Jews previous to Christ, of course. And as 
for children not being believers, they are the truest 
type of faith, as cited by Christ. And as for those 
incapable of faith in Christ being baptized, that is 
a point in question covered by my next argument. 
(2) Children are specifically embraced in the 
gospel covenant. For when that covenant was 
made with Abraham, his children were brought 
under its provisions, and the same seal that was 
administered to him was administered also to them. 
They were all alike circumcised as a token of their 
common interest in that covenant of which circum- 
cision was the appointed symbol. St. Paul says 
that covenant is yet in force: "Know ye therefore 
that they which are of faith, the same are the 
children of Abraham. And the scripture, foresee- 
ing that God would justify the heathen through 



Jl AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

faith, preached before the g-ospel unto Abraham, 
saving-, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So 
then they which be of faith are blessed with faith- 
ful Abraham. 11 (Gal. 3:7-9.) To say that the 
Abrahamic covenant was confined to natural and 
temporal privileg-es and obligations has the singu- 
lar infelicity of contradicting- the apostle. St. Paul 
says ag-ain: "And this I say, that the covenant, 
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the 
law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, 
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise 
of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, 
it is no more of promise: but God g-ave it to Abra- 
ham by promise.' 1 (Gal. 3:17,18.) Here St. Paul- 
tells us plainly that the Abrahamic covenant is 
substantially and essentially identical with the 
Christian covenant; and if children were embraced 
in the provisions of the former, what but a divine 
interdict can exclude them from the provisions of 
the latter? If children of the covenant were admit- 
ted to its svmbolic rite under the old dispensation, 
why may they not be admitted under the new? 

In the Scriptures the "church 11 is essentially one 
and the same under every dispensation. The term 
"church 11 in the New Testament corresponds with 
"congreg-ation 11 in the Old. St. Stephen, accord- 
ingly, speaking- of Moses, says: "This is he that 
was in the church in the wilderness. 11 (Acts 7:38.) 
Compare Heb. 2:12 with Ps. 22:22-25, from which 
it is quoted. The church is often spoken of under 
the notion of "king-dom of God." This church, or 
king-dom of God, our Lord told the Jews should be 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 22 

taken from them and given to a nation bringing 
forth fruits. (See Matt. 21:43.) In Matt. 8:11,12 
the Jews are spoken of as "children of the kingdom," 
and threatened with expulsion because of their dis- 
obedience and unbelief. They were in possession 
of the privileges of the king-dom as it existed in its 
introductory state, and they had the pre-emption 
rights to the privileg-es of that king-dom in its per- 
fect state, in which sense it was said by John and 
Christ to be at hand. ' It was first offered by Christ 
and then by his apostles. Paul and Barnabas said 
to the Jews: "It was necessary that the word of 
God should first have been spoken to you: but see- 
ing- ye put it from you, and judg-e yourselves un- 
worthy of everlasting- life, lo, we turn to the Gen- 
tiles." (Acts 13:46.) The same thoug-ht of iden- 
tity is set forth by Paul under the fig-ure of the 
olive tree broken off by unbelief and grafted into 
by faith. (Rom. 11:17-21.) That baptism is the 
ordinance of initiation into the church and the sign 
and seal of the new covenant now, as circumcision 
was formerly, is evident, St. Paul says: "As many 
of you as have been baptized into Christ have put 
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there 
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor 
female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye 
be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
according- to the promise." (Gal. 3:27-29.) And 
straightway in another place he adds: "In whom 
also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made 
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh bv the circumcision of Christ: buried 



AN INTKKIISTIXG CORKESP" 

with him in baptism." Col. 2:11.12. ) In Id 

pass ; - baptism and circumcision stand for 
and the same thing, a symbol of spirituality in 
1st, and as an initiatory rite into the church. 
>n. or king-dom of God, the one of 
circumcision gradually falling- into di^u^c as bap- 
: tts place. The history of the first two 
.^ries confirm this view. Justin Martyr writes: 
have not received that circumcision accord- 
to the flesh, but that circumcision which is 
:ual; and, moreover, for indeed w c were ^in:: 
we have received this circumcision in baptism, for 
. -■■ 3C of God's mercv; and it is enjoined on 
all to receive it alike." Chrvsostom writes: ""There 
was pain and trouble in the practice of Jewish cir- 
ision; but our circumcision, I mean the grace 
-«f baptism, gives cure without pain: and this for 
iirfants - 11 as men.'" And ag-ain. Basil, in al- 
TZ) 's langnag-e. says: "Dost thou put 
■rcumcision made without hands in putting- off 
the fiVsh. which is done in baptism, when thou 
hearest our Lord say, 'Except a man be born of 
i of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kinu' *od?' " '"■-.::- is overwhelm- 

ingly confirmatory that baptism took the place of 
umcision. and that the children have apart in it. 
hip of children is formally recog-- 
•>t anient. Note that the "lit- 
tle children" of Matthew and Mark are styled 
iphosT in Luke, which means an infant, a babe. 
These children which Jesus took up iithis 

pronounced members of his king-dom 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 24 

and types of all membership, were infants. Those 
to whom he spoke knew that the children were 
members of the Jewish church and that millions of 
them had been admitted into the kingdom of God 
above; so that to them it meant they were members 
of that kingdom on earth, and so entitled to ad- 
mission to that visible kingdom, or church, by bap- 
tism. The instruction of the apostle is to the same 
effect — "Children, obey your parents in the Lord; 
for this is right," showing- that a Christian obliga- 
tion naturally rests upon the child, together with 
other members of the church at Kphesus, to whom 
the apostle is giving instructions of life. 

(4) And children were baptized by the apostles 
as an historical fact. Did you ever examine 
critically the statements of Paul in 1 Cor. 1:16 
as compared with 1 Cor. 16:15, with reference to the 
household of Stephanas? The term "oikos" means 
'"family" in the first, "oikia" means "household" 
in the latter. So that St. Paul baptized the family 
of Stephanas. The same is true of Lydia and her 
family, and of the Philippian jailer and "all his,' 1 
and Crispus as well. This was only in accord with 
the former thoughts of this letter as setting forth the 
Jewish ideas and practices carried forward into the 
Christian church. When the head of the household 
became a Christian, naturally he brought his whole 
family in by baptism and began to train them for 
Christ, just as formerly, when one became a Jew, 
he brought his whole family in b}^ circumcision 
and began to teach them of God. 

This practice of the apostles is confirmed by fhe 



25 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

historical writing's of the second century. Justin 
Martyr, who wrote some forty years after the death 
oi St. John, savs: "Many persons among us. sixty 

or seventy years old. of both sexes, who were made 
disciples of Christ in their infancy, continue un- 
corruptcd.'* Again, he says: "The children of the 
good are deemed worthy of baptism, through the 
faith of those who bring them to be baptized." 
And again. Origen. born A.D. 1S5. expressly says: 
"For this cause the church received from the apos- 
tles an order to give baptism even to infants." I 
could quote vou a dozen of like character, but these 
re sumcient to confirm the practice of infant bap- 
tism in the days of the apostles. 

You have misunderstood a large number of my 
statements. I did not mean to say that woman 
tism was not authorized, but. instead, there 
was no express command for it in the "thou shalts. " 
It stands in the historical facts just as infant bap- 
tism, both of which are authorized in scripture. 
To make it plainer, are women excluded from the 
communion table because there is no express com- 
mand for them to partake? To be sure not. for 
thev belong to the class "man" before God. 

To answer your question. I repeat the thought 
contained in the former argument that believers 
were first baptized, and then their children and 
families followed on the faith of the head of the 
household. It would have been foil} to baptize an 
adult as the head of his own family, with the re- 
sponsibilities of the family on him. unless he was 
a believer. Christ worked for the head- of house- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 2b 

holds, knowing* they would bring- the others with 
them. This stands in the light of the commission. 
We do not baptize children of unbelievers. 

If you please, the Methodist Church is not the 
only one that indorses infant baptism, and it is not 
a question of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but 
of the king-dom of God. You ask the benefits? 
You ask a hard question. Can you tell the bene- 
fits to the circumcised child? The benefits stand 
in obedience to truth as from God. 

Now, finally, you do me injustice in your harsh 
accusations of my talk with your father. There 
were no thoughts of turning your father against 
your friend, of whom I know nothing; nor am I 
afraid of mj position on this subject, which is ab- 
solutely invulnerable as a truth. And there is no 
indelicacy in the mention of circumcision to any 
one; but it was your question naturally put that I 
could not answer, and I hoped your father would 
answer it for me. You asked, if baptism takes the 
place of circumcision, why were only the male 
children circumcised and both baptized? It was this 
question I hoped your father would answer, and that 
was all I had in view in my conversation with him. 

Of course I want you to search for the truth any- 
where and everywhere, but be sure you do not ac- 
cept anything without thorough investigation. 
I trust these explanations are satisfactory. 
Truly your friend and brother, 

A, JE. Clement. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PRESIDING ELDER. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., September 18, 1906.— Dear 
Brother Clement: Yours of August 15 received. 
In your first letter to me you said: "If any of these 
points jou do not understand, write me, and I'll 
take pleasure in illuminating- them. Or if any 
difficult points confront you, write me, and I'll do 
my best to help you out." I understood from this 
that you had plenty of spare time to "illuminate" 
your doctrine and to help me out of all "difficult 
points;" but I am sorry your business is such that 
it renders you unable to meet your promises to me. 
I had discovered that Methodist preachers have no 
time for argument when they run ag-ainst a con- 
troversy unexpectedly, and that the bishop cannot 
use his pen when he is asked to give Bible proof 
for his unscriptural practices. 

You are mistaken as to me taking- the place of 
my friend and using- his arg-uments ag-ainst jour 
positions. I was in my own place and using- the 
arg-uments furnished by the Lord and the apostles. 
My friend directed my attention to these arg-uments, 
but the arg-uments themselves came from God; and 
this is why you, my pastor, and the bishop cannot 
overthrow them. 

I called for Bible authority for the practice of 
infant baptism, but you onh T give historical au- 
thority which came in after the worship of God 
had been corrupted by the "doctrines and com- 
mandments of men." This I could not accept. . 

I am surprised at your taking- up so much space 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 28 

on the question of circumcision, when you will not 
allow a lady to ask you to explain why you baptize 
female babies, since none but males were circum- 
cised. You should not take so much liberty and 
allow me none. I will not ask you to explain why 
you baptize girl children, since none but males 
were circumcised, but will ask why you do not 
practice circumcision instead of baptism if Paul 
teaches the covenant of circumcision is "yet in 
force." If it is "yet in force," how did baptism 
take its place? 

Why do you refer to Mark 10:14 to prove infant 
baptism, and then forbid the children of unbeliev- 
ing- parents coming- to Christ by refusing- to bap- 
tize them? You should let them come and then 
baptize them. "Forbid them not," says Jesus. 

You say: "People are not baptized as a means of 
washing- away their sins, but because their sins 
have been washed away." Ananias said to Saul: 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
calling- on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16.) 
Should I, believe you or God? You say one thing 
and God says another. I will accept what the Lord 
says. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist 
Church, preached just like Ananias. Why do you 
depart from them? 

Relative to the olive tree, how could this refer 
to infants being- grafted in by faith, since they 
have no faith , neither have they been broken off be- 
cause of unbelief? In fact, if infants are in the 
church, and therefore should be baptized, how can 
they be grafted in bv faith and baptism? If a 



2 l > AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

sheep is already in the pasture, how can you put 
it in? 

You think I ask a hard question relative to giv- 
ing- infants the Lord's Supper and spiritual food. 
I do not know, but suppose it and all my other ques- 
tions were hard, since you failed to answer any. 

I never said one word about you trying- to turn 
1113- father against my friend. In this you are 
mistaken. It seems you read letters about like you 
read the Bible. 

I do not aim to accept anything- without a thor- 
ough investigation. In this I shall follow your ad- 
vice. For some time I have been investigating- the 
Methodist Church and its doctrine, and fail to rind 
them in the Bible; and therefore, following your 
advice, I cannot accept them. I aim to obey the 
gospel and belong to no institution but the church 
of God and be nothing but a Christian. My friend, 
Mr. C. K. W. Dorris, will baptize me into Christ at 
nine o'clock sharp, Saturday morning, September 
29, near my father's home, and I would be glad to 
have you present to witness my obedience. May 
you live to see the truth, accept and obey the same, 
and be saved on the terms of the gospel, is my 
desire. Your friend, (Miss) Nora Yount. 

[This letter received no reply.] 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 
Part Second. 

LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE BISHOP. 

Nashville, Tenn., July 5, 1906.— Dear Brother 
Galloway: For some time I have been reading- the 
Bible and gathering- all the facts I can relative to 
a few points of doctrine we teach. I g-otmy pastor 
and our presiding- elder to give me a few of their 
points on the different questions, which aided me 
much in confirming- my faith in the Bible teaching 
on the questions treated by them. You being- our 
bishop and head of the church, and therefore the 
hig-hest authority in the church, and since each has 
his own peculiar way of g-etting- at and explaining 
different subjects, thereby throwing new light on 
the same, therefore I address you this communica- 
tion, trusting you will give me the strongest Bible 
points that can be given in favor of the subjects 
hereinafter named. 

I have been an active worker in the Methodist 
Church for thirteen years, and my father has been 
a steward in the church for a number of years. 

Please give me the scripture which cannot be 
successfully denied that shows the time when, and 
the place where, Christ and the apostles authorized 



31 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

and practiced infant baptism, sprinkling", and bap- 
tism "because of the remission of sins." 
I trust to have an early reply. 

Yours truly, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 
[This letter received no reply.] 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 
Part Third. 

Discussion between Hiss Nora Yount and 

Mr. LoveSl, Pastor in the 

M. E. Church, South. 

LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Nashville, Term., July 5, 1906. — Dear Brother 
Lovell: I have a friend who asks me for a Bible 
example of infant baptism, an example of people 
having- water sprinkled on them for baptism, and 
one where they wen? baptized "because of the re- 
mission of sins. ,, This friend offers me ten dollars 
each for thess three examples, and gives me the 
privileg-e of asking- any one I wish to assist me in 
the search. Will you help me? 

I know we practice these thing-s, and we ought 
to have some Bible reasons for doing- so; but so far 
I have failed to find them, and I now appeal to you 
for help. 

Trusting- that you will favor me with an early 
reply, and also the desired references, I am, 
Most truly, your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Greenbrier, Tenn , July 9, 1906. — Miss Nora 
Yount. — Dear Friend: Your letter received Satur- 
day afternoon and contents carefully noted. I 
think I can give you a clear case of infant baptism, 
also older ones as well, all of whom were baptized 
by pouring- or sprinkling, for it is about the same 
in one or two verses. See 1 Cor. 10:1,2. This was 
a baptism, so called by Paul, and trie mode by 
which it was done is given in Ps. 77:17. As to the 
other example of one being baptized "because of 
remission of sins," see Acts 2:38; and instead of it 
being an example of one, it is an example of three 
thousand who were baptized "because of remission 
of sins." The little word "for," in this verse, I 
know your friend will say means "in order to;" but 
it is here used in the sense of "because of." 
Fraternally, 

W. H. Loveix. 



LETTER FROM miss yount To the pastor. 

Nashville, Term., July 16, 1906.— Dear Brother 
Lovell: Your favor of the 9th received. Many 
thanks for your kindness and promptness. I ad- 
mire the kind and g-entle spirit in which you write. 
I hope you will not g-et the wrong- idea of my 
motives in placing- these thing's before you. I am 
honest in what I do and desire nothing- but the 
truth, and hope you will not think otherwise, ;md 
that you will aid me in my search. 

As I told you, I have a friend who calls the prac- 
tice of infant baptism, sprinkling-, and baptism be- 
cause of the remission of sins, in question, and asks 
me 10 g-ive him one scripture for each practice 
where Christ authorized them and one example of 
each where the apostles practiced them, and says 
that he will g-ive me ten dollars in g-old for each 
example. Being- unable to find the authority in 
the Bible for either practice, and since you are my 
pastor, I thoug-ht you would be willing- and anxious 
to help me out. I am g-lad indeed to find you will- 
ing- to help me, and trust you will not grow "weary 
in well-doing-." 

There is thirty dollars in my friend's proposition; 
and now, to encourag-e you in helping* me, I will 
g-ive you one-half of the thirty dollars if you will 
produce the scripture that shows the time when, 
and the place where, Christ authorized the practice 
of each, and where the apostles practiced the same* 

My friend says the points you g-ave me do not 
prove either practice; and after his explanation it 



35 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

seems clear they do not. He says 1 Cor. 10:1,2 
and Ps. 77:17 do not prove sprinkling- nor infant 
baptism. He sa}^s this was long before Christ came 
and authorized baptism. He admits that 1 Cor. 10: 
1,2 refers to the baptism of the Israelites, but says 
that if this proves infant baptism it also proves 
animal baptism, for they had their animals along 
as well as their infants. He says Paul did not say 
the infants were baptized, but that "all our fathers 
were baptized." He says that infants are not fath- 
ers, and that if Paul intended to teach infant bap- 
tism he should have said "all our fathers and their 
infants were baptized." 

As to Ps. 77:17 proving- that the Israelites were 
sprinkled by the "clouds pouring- out water," my 
friend says that if this proves either practice it 
proves pouring-, and that we should practice pour- 
ing- instead of sprinkling-, and that if this is the 
only example we can produce it kills our practice. 
Besides this, he says that the clouds that poured 
out water were not over the Israelites, and that the 
cloud which was over them was not a rain cloud, 
and quotes Ex. 13:21 to prove it: "The Lord went 
before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead 
them the way; and by nig-ht in a pillar of fire, to 
g-ive them lig'ht; to g-o by day and nig-ht." 

The scriptures you refer to speak of "clouds'' 
(plural) and "cloud (singular). The "cloud' 1 
(singular) in 1 Cor. 10:1,2 was over the Israelites, 
and it was not a rain cloud. The "clouds" (plural) 
in Ps. 77:17 poured out the water, and, according to 
Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1,2, had nothing to do with their 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 3b 

baptism; for they "were all baptized unto Moses in 
the cloud [singular] and in the sea." 

As to the design of baptism, my friend says you 
refer to the wrong- scripture when you introduce 
Acts 2: 38. He says that he has several transla- 
tions of the New Testament, and that each renders 
Acts 2:38 "for the remission of sins" or "in order 
to the remission of sins." He says if the expres= 
sion "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 is used 
in the sense of "because of," then Jesus shed his 
blood because of remission, for the same term is 
used relative to his blood: "This is my blood of the 
new testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
mission of sins." (Matt. 26:28.) My friend wants 
to know if Jesus shed his blood because sins had 
already been remitted. 

My friend also says your example of the baptism 
of the Israelites contradicts your position on Acts 
2: 38. He arg-ues that Pharaoh and his host were 
the enemy of the Israelites, that sin is our enemy, 
that the Israelites left their enemy where they were 
baptized (Ex. 14:26-28), and that we lose our enemy 
(past sins) when we are baptized, and refers to 
Acts 2:38; 22:16, to prove it: "Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Spirit." "And now why tarriest 
thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling- on the name of the Lord." 

He says that if we sprinkle infants or adults on 
the strength of the baptism of the Israelites, we 
should do it "for" or "in order to" the remission of 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

sins. 

He also refers to the teaching- of the founder of 
our church — John Wesley — and says he taug-ht 
baptism for the remission of sins, and quotes him 
thus: 

"By baptism, we who were 'by nature children of 
wrath,' are made the children of God. 

••Baptism doth now save us. if we live answerable 
thereto; if we repent, believe, and obev the g-ospel: 
supposing - this, as it admits us into the church here, 
so into giory hereafter. 

"Did our Savior design this should remain always 
in his church? This is the third thing- we are to 
consider. And this may be dispatched in a few 
words, since there can be no reasonable doubt, but 
it was intended to last as long- as the church into 
which it is the appointed means of entering-. In 
the ordinary way, there is no other means of enter- 
ing- into the church or into heaven/' ("Doctrinal 
Tracts, pag-es 248-250, published 1845.; 

"Baptism administered to real penitents, is both 
a means and seal of pardon. Xor did God ordi- 
narilv in the primitive church bestow this on anv, 
unless throug-h this means." ("Notes on New 
Testament," Acts 22:16. I 

"The thing- tvpifled by the ark. even baptism, 
now saveth us — that is, throug-h the water of bap- 
tism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms 
the world as a flood; not indeed the bare outward 
sign, but the inward grace; a Divine consciousness, 
that both our persons and our actions are accepted, 
throug-h Him who died and rose ag-ain for us. ,r 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 38 

("Notes on New Testament," 1 Pet. 3:21.) 

As to the mode of baptism, if it should be called 
a "mode," my friend quotes: "Then Philip opened 
his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and 
preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on 
their way, they came unto a certain water: and the 
eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder 
me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest 
with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered 
and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand 
still: and they went down both into the water, both 
Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And 
when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit 
of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch 
saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoic- 
ing-." (Acts 8:35-39.) "Therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ 
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
life." (Rom. 6:4.) "Buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with him through the 
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead." (Col. 2:12.) 

I must confess I am unable to answer these argu- 
ments, and trust you will answer them and mail 
the same to me by return mail, as I am greatly in 
need of your help. Address me at 402 Twelfth 
avenue, South, Nashville, Tenn. 

Your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT, 

White House, Tenn., July 31, 1906.— Miss Nora 
Youut. Dear Miss Nora: I received j^our epistle 
last week. I will sa}' in reply, as Daniel said to 
Belshazzar: "Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give 
thy rewards to another." Yet will I answer thee in 
regard to this matter. You ask your friend for a 
sing-le New Testament objection to infant baptism, 
and give chapter and verse. Your friend claims 
that there is no command to baptize infants. Is 
there any command not to baptize them? It is a 
poor rule that will not work both ways. There 
ought to be a positive interdict if their admission 
into the Christian church were not intended. In- 
fants were admitted to the Hebrew church, and 
nothing- but a divine interdict can lawfully exclude 
them from the Christian church, which is only a 
development of the former, its boundaries being 
enlarged and its privileges increased under the 
present dispensation. However, there is just as 
positive command to baptize children as there is to 
baptize adults. Jesus said to the apostles: "Go ye 
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." You are bound to admit that infants 
are a part of a nation, and Jesus said baptize the 
nations; therefore he said baptize the children, be- 
cause infants are a part of every nation. ( See Matt. 
28:19.) The apostles practiced it. Lydia and her 
household ("Acts 16:15), the jailer and his house- 
hold (Acts 16:33), and others. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE^. 40 

The Christian fathers claimed apostolic authority 
tor the baptism of infants, and according-ly baptized 
them. In a church council, A.D. 253, sixty-six 
bishops met, not to discuss whether infants should 
be baptized, but whether they should be baptized 
before eig-ht da} T s old, and they all agreed that it 
was not necessary to wait until they were eig-ht 
days old. So if there was no objection to infant 
baptism, it must have been in practice. In fact, all 
the Christian world believed in infant baptism until 
about rive hundred years ag-o, and about ninety-five 
per cent of the Christian world believe in it to-daj'. 
These are facts on infant baptism that your friend 
and nobody else can g-et around. We baptize people, 
not to remit their sins, but because their sins are 
remitted; not in order to pardon, but because of 
pardon. (See Acts 3:19; 10:43-48; 19:1-5; John 1: 
11-13.) 

Paul was baptized by pouring or sprinkling, or 
<else there was a pool in the house of Judas, for he 
was baptized in the house of Judas standing- on his 
feet. (See Acts 9:11,18.) And it was after his 
•sins had been pardoned that he was baptized. Re- 
pentance and faith are the conditions of pardon, and 
baptism is a condition or door into the visible 
•church. 

When the children of Israel were crossing the 
Red Sea, Paul savs they "were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (lCor, 10:2); 
and the Psalmist, in Ps. 77:17, says: "The clouds 
poured out water." So the apostle calls it a bap- 
tism, and the Psalmist tells how it was done: and 



41 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

there is no use in trying - to explain it away. 

The three thousand that were baptized on the 
day of Pentecost could not have been baptized by 
immersion, for it is not at all probable and it is 
altogether impracticable. But it could have been 
done by pouring- or sprinkling-. It was evidently a 
fulfillment of Isa. 52:15; and they were "baptized 
because of remission of sins," not "in order to the 
remission of sins," as your friend claims. Do not 
let him pull the wool over your eyes in any such a 
style. Respectfully, 

W. H. Lovell. 



BETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., August 31, 1906.— Dear 
Brother Lovell: Your favor of July 31 received 
and contents carefully noted. Many th anks for your 
kindness. 

My friend has not l 'pulled the wool over my 
eyes;" but your references and comments have 
either clouded my eyes or my intellect, for I must 
•confess I cannot see your points. 

First, it is not my friend's duty to prove a nega- 
tive proposition. Infant baptism is our practice, 
not his. We are in the affirmative, and, therefore, 
it is our duty, according- to the rules of discussion, 
to produce the proof of said practice. It is our duty 
to affirm and his privilege to deny. My friend has 
not asked me to prove a negative proposition; and I 
feel sure he would not make such an unjust de- 
mand of me, and we ought not to make it of him. 

My friend called the practice of infant baptism 
in question, stating that Christ authorized the bap- 
tism of none but believing penitents, and so far has 
sustained his position. I searched in vain for scrip- 
tures authorizing this practice of ours, and it seems 
that you and Brother Clement have made as great 
a failure as I did. 

You ask if my friend could produce a scripture 
showing where Christ commanded children not to be 
baptized. That, you must see, is unfair, and poor 
argument. If this is not true, then my friend could 
-eat chicken pie in connection with the Lord's Sup- 
per without a successful contradiction from you. 



43 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

If you objected to his eating- chicken pie in connec- 
tion with the Lord's Supper, then he could ask you 
to show him where Christ commanded him not to 
eat chicken pie on the Lord's table; and if you failed 
to produce such a command, then the practice 
would be as scriptural as infant baptism. 

The church is not a development of the old cove- 
nant, neither is it anv part of it. Hence, infant 
baptism cannot be introduced into the church on 
the strength that they were born into the old cove- 
nant. The new covenant is not like the old. "Be- 
hold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and 
with the house of Judah: not according- to the cov- 
enant that I made with their fathers in the day that 
I took them by the hand to bring- them out of the 
land of Egypt; which mv covenant they brake, al- 
though I was an husband unto them, saith the 
Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will 
make with the house of Israel; After those days. 
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their 
God, and they shall be my people. And they shall 
teach no more every man his neighbor, and every 
man his brother, saying-, Know the Lord: for they 
shall all know me, from the least of them unto the 
greatest of them, saith the Lo^d: for I will forgive 
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no 
more." (Jer. 31:31-34. ) In the old covenant chil- 
dren were born into it, after which they were taught 
to know the Lord; but in the new covenant they 
must be taught to know the Lord before entering- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 44 

"They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, 
and every man his brother, saying-. Know th : Lord: 
for they shall all know me, from the least of them 
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: fori will 
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their 
sin no more.' 1 (Jer, 31:34.) "No man can come 
to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw 
him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is 
written in the prophets, And they shall be all 
taugdit of God. Every man therefore that hath 
heard, and hath learned of the Father, comethunto 
me." (John 6:44,45.) The law was changed. 
"For the priesthood being- changed, there is made 
of necessity a chang-e also of the law." (Heb. 7:12.) 
One chang-e in the law is relative to infants. In 
the old dispensation the infant entered the covenant 
before teaching-, at and by the natural birth. In 
the new dispensation people enter the covenant after 
teaching-, at and by the spiritual birth. "No man 
can come to me, except the Father which hath sent 
me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all 
taug-ht of God. Every man therefore that hath 
heard, and hath learned of the Father, cotneth unto 
me." (John 6:44,45.) "Jesus answered, Verily, 
verity, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he c-mnjt enter into the 
kingrlom of God." (John 3:5.) You attempt to 
prove too much, it seems to me, by the commission. 
You will not stand by your logic. 

True, infants in one sense constitute a part of a 
nation, but not in the ligiit you seek to throw 



45 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

around it. Jesus did not include all of every nation, 
as you seem to think, . but he limited it to the 
taught. Your logic would baptize the infidel and 
the Hindoo mother who sacrifices her child; these 
constitute a part of a nation. Would vou baptize 
these two characters? If not, why baptize the 
infant? The logic that baptizes the latter character 
would force you to baptize the former two. If there 
was no limitation thrown around the commission 
by the Lord, your logic would be good; but since 
the limitation is there, your logic is not logic at all. 

You refer to Matthew's account of the commis- 
sion. Suppose we try Mark's account of it. "Go 
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
(Mark 16:15,16.) Mark's limitation is drawn at 
teaching and faith. We will leave off Mark's lim- 
itation and apply your logic and see what you 
would preach to and baptize. He says: "Preach 
the gospel to every creature." Sheep, hogs, cattle, 
mules, and horses are creatures, and you would 
preach to and baptize these if your logic stands 
good. Will you stand by your logic? If so, baptize 
all the creatures. If not, then lay aside your logic, 
accept the limitations Christ threw around the 
commission, and cease baptizing infants. 

You do not quote all the commission as given in 
Matthew. You leave off the latter part: "Teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even 
unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:20.) Can 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 46 

the infants observe the "all things" commanded of 
the Lord? If not, then they should not be baptized, 
for this is what the baptized were to do. The bap- 
tized were to do the thing's Christ commanded the 
apostles to do, and what was this? "Teach and 
baptize." Can the infant teach and baptize people? 
No. Then the infant should not be baptized. Not 
only are these things true; but if you baptize the 
infant, you should not debar it from the Lord's 
Supper, for this is one thing- Jesus taught should 
be observed. 

My friend wishes to know whom you call the 
"Christian fathers." He says if you mean Titus 
and his colaborers in the gospel, that you are mis- 
taken in saying- the Christian fathers claimed apos- 
tolic authority for infant baptism. He wants to 
know whom you call the "Christian fathers," and 
wants your authority for stating- that they claimed 
apostolic authority for infant baptism. 

As to the council of bishops in A.D. 253, this 
does not concern me, neither does it answer the 
questions nor satisfy my demands. I am wanting 
divine authority, and not bishops, authority. Even 
if the bishops did agree that infants mig-ht be bap- 
tized before eig-ht days old, this does not prove the 
practice right, unless they could show authority from 
the Bible for such an agreement and practice. 
Where did they g-et Bible authority for their 
agreement and practice? Acts 16:15,33 does not, to 
my mind, prove infant baptism. How do you know 
Lydia and the jailer had infant children? Can you 
prove they did? The facts seem to show that they 



4/ AN INTERESTING CORRRSPONDENCK. 

did not; or, if they did, they were not baptized, for 
those baptized had faith, and this infants could not 
have. 

You say "all the Christian world believed in in- 
fant baptism until about five hundred years ag-o." 
It seems that Christ and the apostles did not believe 
in it, neither did they practice it; at least, if they 
did. I cannot find it in the Bible, neither can I find 
any one who is able to produce the scripture prov- 
ing- that they did. The statement "that ninety- 
five per cent of the Christian world to-day" believes 
in infant baptism does not prove the practice rig-ht. 
If the entire world practiced this, it would not prove 
the practice apostolic, unless the world could prove 
that the apostles believed in and practiced it. The 
proof must come from the Bible, and not from the 
practice nor the faith of the world. Because the 
people believe in and practice a thing- does not prove 
it rig-ht. If it did, this would prove polygamy di- 
vine, for the Mormons believe in and practice it. 
You say:"We baptize people, not to remit their sins, 
but because their sins are remitted; not in order to 
pardon, but because of pardon." Ag-ain, you say: 
"Repentance and faith are the conditions or door 
into the visible church. " Now, if these statements 
be true, how can you baptize an infant, seeing it 
has neither faith nor repentance, and, therefore, no* 
pardon? If these statements be true, the infant is 
not a proper subject for baptism, for it has neither 
faith, repentance, nor pardon; hence, when } t ou bap- 
tize an infant, you baptize a sinner, and do what 
our people accuse others of doing. If infants are 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 48 

not sinners, then your argument is at fault. If 
your arguments are true, then you cannot baptize 
infants. If it is a fact that we baptize, not to re- 
mit sins, but "because sins are remitted," and "re- 
pentance and faith are the conditions of pardon," 
then we preach infant damnation, because they can 
neither repent nor believe. Then why baptize them 
at all? If your argument is true, they are damned 
with or without baptism. According to John Wes- 
ley, the founder of our church, if the infant is a 
sinner, it must be baptized in order to be saved. He 
says: "If infants are guilty of original sin, then 
they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the 
ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be 
washed away by baptism." ( "Doctrinal Tracts," 
page 251, published 1845. ) It seems that you do 
not agree with John Wesley relative to the design 
of baptism, He taught that the sinner (if he 
would repent and believe) was a proper subject for 
baptism, and that his sins were washed away in 
baptism; but you teach opposite. Why is this? 
Either you are not sound in the Methodist faith or 
Wesley was not. Which is it? If Wesley was sound 
in the faith, then you have departed from it. If you 
are sound in the faith, then Wesley was never in it. 
Which one must I believe? I cannot believe both, 
for they are contradictory. Not only do you disa- 
g-ree with Wesley, but you disagree with Brother 
Clement, our presiding elder, and he also disagrees 
with Weslev. 

In a letter to me (Mav 1, 1906), Brother Clement 
says: "All members of the kino-dom of God are fit 



4 1 ' AX INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

subjects for baptism. . . . children are rlt subjects for 
baptism, already being members of the kingdom." 

If his teachings are correct, yours are not. If infants 
are in the church before baptism, then hove is baptism 
,% a door into the church?" Now just such contra- 
dictory teaching- as this is what clouds my pathway. 

Relative to Paul's being- baptized bv sprinkling- or 
pouring-, it seems that this fact is settled when it 
says he was buried in baptism. "We are buried 
with him by baptism into death." Rom. 6:4. 
Paul includes himself with the Romans by saying- 
•"we."' As to his being- baptized after his sins were 
pardoned, Ananias removes this trouble, for he said: 
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling- on the name 
of the Lord." Acts 22:1b. I This looks like he 
got rid of his sins in baptism. John Wesley agrees 
with Ananias, for in his "Notes on the Xew Testa- 
ment" he savs: •'Baptism administered to real 
penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon. 
Xor did God ordinarilv in the primitive Church be- 
stow this on anv, unless throug-h this means." 

In regard to the baptism of the Israelites, you 
fail to remove a single point made by my friend. 
You onlv repeat vour assertions without proof. 
Paul teaches that all our fathers were baptized — 
not their children. The clouds plural' which 
poured out water were not over the Israelites, and 
the cloud I sing-ular was not a rain cloud. Since 
this is true, then how could they have been bap- 
tized bv the clouds pouring- out water? 

As to the impossibility of the three thousand being- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 50 

immersed on Pentecost, it seems tome that it would 
be quite as easy as, if not easier than, taking- them 
in, in Methodist fashion. One man did not have all 
this work to do. There were the twelve apostles 
to assist in the work; and if the apostles needed 
any assistance, there were the one hundred and 
twent} T disciples present to assist them. In all, 
one hundred and thirty-two competent persons to 
do this baptizing - , and surely all these could have 
immersed the three thousand. 

I will now examine the scriptures vou introduce 
to prove that remission of sins precedes baptism. 
The first is Acts 3:19. Bv reading- this from the 
Revision and comparing- it with Acts 2:38, we find 
they are the same. 

Below I compare the two scriptures: 

REMISSION OF SINS. 



Repent 



be baptized 



and ve shall re- 

for the remis- ceive the gift of 

sion of sins the Holv Spirit. 

(Acts 2:38.) 



|that so there 
may come sea- 
that your sinslsons of refresh- 
and turn jmay be blotting- from the 
Repent ag-ain ted out [presence of the 

|L,ord. (Acts 3: 
19, R. V.) 



"Turn ag-ain" (R. V.) in Acts 3:19 is baptism 



51 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

in Acts 2:38. "That your sins may be blotted out" 
in Acts 3:19 is "for the remission of sins" in Acts 
2:38. "Seasons of refreshing-'' in Acts 3:19 is the 
"gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 2:38. Prom this 
it is plain that Peter taught baptism for the remis- 
sion of sins in both passages. 

I present the following- lessons on turning- to the 
Lord: "A great number that believed turned unto 
the Lord." (Acts 11:21.) First, they believed; 
second, after believing, they turned unto the Lord. 
Is one pardoned before he turns unto the Lord? I 
think not. "Let the wicked forsake his way, and 
the unrig-hteous man his thoughts: and let him re- 
turn unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon 
him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." 
(Isa. 55:7.) As the turning to the Lord takes place 
after believing, does it not follow that one is not 
pardoned as soon as he believes? In turning unto 
the Lord, what did they do? In other conversions 
the turning act was baptism. ' 'When they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the king- 
dom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they 
were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8:12.) 
"Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed 
on the Lord with all his house; and many of the 
Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." 
(Acts 18:8.) If the turning act is not baptism, 
then what is it? The turning was not repentance, 
for Paul told the Gentiles to "repent and turn to 
God." (Acts 26:20.) Here the turning followed 
the repenting. What did these penitent ones do 
in turning to God? Other penitents were baptized 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 52 

into Christ "for the remission of sins." (Acts 2: 
38.) Forgiveness of sins takes place after the turn- 
ing-, for Peter said: "Repent ye therefore, and 
turn again, that jour sins may be blotted out." 
(Acts 3:19, R. V.) The turning- follows both the 
believing- and the repenting*. Forgiveness follows 
the believing-, repenting-, and turning-. What does 
one do in turning- to the Lord? It seems to me he 
is "baptized into Christ" "for the remission of 
sins." (Acts 2:38.) 

Relative to Acts 10:43-48; 19:1-5, it will suffice to 
say these people were to receive remission of sins 
throug-h the name of Christ, and that in each case 
they were baptized into his name. They could not 
be saved out of Christ, and baptism puts them into 
Christ. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death?" (Rom. 6:3.) "For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
(Gal. 3:27.) They could not be saved before being- 
freed from sin, and their sins were washed away by 
baptism. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling- on the name of the Lord." (Acts 
22:16.) They could not be saved without putting 
on Christ, and Christ is put on in baptism. "As 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ." (Gal. 3:27.) 

Your next is: "He came unto his own, and 
his own received him not. But as many as re- 
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the 
sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
name." (John 1:11,12.) (1) These people were 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

not sons of God, for to him who is a son power can- 
not be given to become a son. (2) As long- as God's 
word stands that Jesus gave to believers power to 
become sons of God, just so long- will it be evident 
that in that case there were believers who were not 
sons. (3) As faith brought them to the place 
where Christ gave them the power to become sons 
of God, how could the j have been saved at or before 
this time, or by faith only? (4) Were they sons? 
If so, how did they exercise the power Christ g-ave 
them in becoming- sons? What did they do? (5.) 
Is a man saved before becoming- a son of God? If 
not, as these people believed and were not yet sons, 
does it not follow that "faith alone" does not save, 
and that Acts 2:38 must be obeyed? 

"So shall he sprinkle many nations " (Isa. 52: 
15. ) How do vou know he meant baptism? Mig-ht 
it not refer to his blood or the blood of sprinkling 
of which Paul speaks? Where is the New Testa- 
ment practice growing- out of this? Dr. Barnes, 
the celebrated Presbyterian, says: "It furnishes no 
arg-ument for the practice of sprinkling- in baptism. 
It refers to the fact of his purifying or cleansing" 
the nations, and not to the ordinance of Christian 
baptism; nor should it be used as an argument 
in reference to the mode in which that should be 
administered." (Com. on Isa. 52:15.) 

Now, Brother Lovell, these comments may seem 
severe and harsh in some instances; but I trust you 
know and understand, me well enough not to be af- 
fronted, for you placed your construction on the pas- 
sages referred to in our correspondence, and now 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 54 

these are mine. 

I have loved you as a pastor and a friend, and 
shall not allow our differences on these subjects 
to change my personal reg-ard for you, but I cannot 
longer believe the Methodist doctrine on the points 
discussed. I am your sincere friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 
[To this letter no reply was received.] 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Part Fourth. 

WHY I LEFT THE METHODIST CHURCH. 

I had been an honored and active member in the 
Methodist Church since I joined it. From my cradle 
till about one year ago I had been taught Metho- 
dism. I had heard nothing- but sectarianism taught. 
I was a full-blooded Methodist and gave every evi- 
dence of the same, and I thought any doctrine was 
heres}^ which did not agree with the doctrine of 
my favored church. I have made a great change, 
but did not make it without some thought on my 
part. 

The following are some of the reasons why I left 
the Methodist Episcopal Church: 

1. It is an institution not ordained of God nor 
sealed by the blood of Christ. It cannot be found 
in the Bible; hence I left it. 

2. It teaches that one can be saved outside of 
the church as well as in it. This being true, there 
is no salvation in the Methodist Church, and, there- 
fore, it is nonessential. I did not desire to belong to 
a nonessential institution. 

3. If one can be saved outside of the Methodist 
Church as well as in it, salvation is not in the 
Methodist Church, and I did not wish to belong to 
an institution in which there is no salvation. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 56 

4. Christ did not purchase the Methodist Church 
with his blood; hence it has not been purchased by 
the blood of Christ. I could not remain in an in- 
stitution which has not been so purchased. 

5. The Methodist Church was set up long- since 
the apostles died. I did not wish to belong- to 
something- young-er than the apostles and the New 
Testament. 

6. The apostles did not belong- to the Methodist 
Church, and I did not desire to belong- to anything 
to which the apostles did not belong-. 

7. It teaches and practices thing's not found in 
the Bible. I will not belong- to an institution that 
does this. 

8. It teaches doctrine which contradicts the word 
of the Lord. 

9. The pastors and presiding- elders contradict 
each other, and cannot produce scripture sustaining 
their teaching*. I did not wish to encourag-e such 
by remaining- in said church. 

10. The bishop made no effort to set forth the 
scripture proving- his teaching-, and I will not be- 
long- to a church when its head cannot support its 
doctrine. 

11. The Methodist preachers will not tell sin- 
ners to "repent, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holv Ghost " 
(Acts 2:38), like the inspired apostles did. 

12. The Methodist Church will not tell mourn- 
ers to "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling- on the name of the Lord," like Ana- 



57 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

nias told Saul. (Acts 22:16.) 

13. In the practice of infant baptism, the Meth- 
odist Church baptizes without faith, repentance, or 
change of heart. This is not Bible doctrine. 

14. It believes in three different kinds of bap- 
tism — sprinkling, immersion, and Holy Spirit. 
Paul says: "One baptism." (Eph. 4:5.) I could 
not support such a theory. 

15. It adds to and takes from the word of the 
Lord. 

16. It is governed by a human ' 'Discipline" instead 
of the Bible. I prefer the Bible. 

17. The Methodist Church debars the infant 
from the Lord's Supper. If they are members of 
the church, they should have the Supper. 

18. It teaches salvation by faith only, and, there- 
fore, sets aside repentance. I cannot support a 
church that leaves off repentance. 

19. When it introduces repentance, it kills the 
faith-alone theory. I could not hold to such a con- 
tradictory theory. 

20. It teaches that men can be saved without 
baptism , but will not receive people into the church 
without it. I will not belong - to a church that will 
palm off a subject on the Lord that it refuses. 

21. I could not wear the name of Christ and be- 
long to the Methodist Church. I entered the 
church of Christ by obedience, and am nothing but 
a humble Christian. 

Perhaps some of my eld friends and associates 
will feel somewhat alarmed at my change; but since 
the Methodist Church teaches, "It makes no di1.tr- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 58 

ence what church one belongs to — one church is as 
good as another." I see no need of alarm on their 
part, if the j are sincere in this teaching. 

Now, a word to my brethren in Christ. I am 
here alone, surrounded by sectarian influences. 
There is no congregation near enough for me to meet 
with. This I regret. I realize there is a hard fight 
before me. I have just fought one hard battle, and 
gained the victory. By the help and grace of God, I 
expect to fight another, and hope to gain the vic- 
tory. Like Moses of old, I prefer "to suffer with the 
people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for 
a season." I hope to build up a church of Christ 
here; I believe I can do it. Brethren, remember 
me in your prayers. Who will help me support a 
tent meeting here next year? A letter from any 
good sister in Israel in the way of encouragement 
will be appreciated. My people are all members of 
the Methodist Church, even my dear old father and 
mother. I am alone in the faith. I know what I 
have to contend with. I am happy in my Savior's 
love, though all former friends may forsake me. I 
rejoice in the light of the glorious truth, and can 
give a reason for the hope that is within me. I 
desire that all my friends and relatives hear the 
gospel in its original simplicity and power, and 
that they may believe and obey the same and re- 
joice in a well-grounded hope of eternal life. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn. (Miss) Nora Yount. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Discussion between Mr. Nackles, Pastor 

in the M. E. Church, South, 

and Hiss Nora Yount. 

Part Fifth. 

LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., December 19, 1906. — Miss 
Nora Yount, Nashville, Tenn. — Dear Madam: I 
have recently read your two letters addressed to 
Brother Clement, of the Clarksville District, and 
published in the Gospel Advocate of December 6. 
Will you please pardon a stranger for coming- in 
and offering- to help you some? I am a member of 
the Tennessee Conference, and pastor of the Alex- 
andria and Watertown charg-e, in the Lebanon Dis- 
trict. If you want to know of my identity and stand- 
ing-, inquire at the Methodist Publishing- House, 
or ask any pastor in the Tennessee Conference. 

I am not writing - for Brother Clement's benefit. 
He is abundantly able to take care of himself. 
Your published letters impressed me with the neces- 
sity of your looking* at the matter from an entirely 
different standpoint. 

I have met a number of people who demand 
that we Methodists give a plain, specific, direct, 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 60 

unmistakable Bible command or example for all 
that we believe and practice; but the same people 
have always failed to show such a command or ex- 
ample for all the j believe and practice. 

I venture a g-uess on your friend with whom you 
have been discussing- the subject of infant baptism. 
He believes in immersion as the only baptism; that 
the communion should be taken every Sunday, or 
Lord's day; and that the communion should be 
given to the women of the church 

In one letter to Brother Clement you ask: "Will 
you please give me one Bible example where infants 
were baptized?" 

Will you please ask your friend the following- 
questions: (1) For one Bible example where any 
person was immersed in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit? (2) For one Bible example 
where women took the communion? (3) For one 
Bible command for taking- the communion every 
Sunday, or Lord's day? If you or your friend will 
furnish me Bible proof of these three thing's, then 
I will show you a Bible example for infant baptism 
without the ten dollars in g*old or any other reward. 

The point of emphasis is this: If one person de- 
mands of others Bible proof in plain command- 
ments or examples for all they believe and practice, 
then he should be able to g-ive the same kind of 
proof for all he believes and practices. 

If it suits you to answer, I will be glad to hear 
from you. If not, I hope you will give these 
thing-s careful consideration. 

I send you by this mail, under separate cover, a 



M AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

copy of a little book on "The Mode of Water Bap- 
tism." I think a careful study of that will help 
you. Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodie ttsville, Tenn., January 14, 1907.— Mr. 
Georg-e W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
Yours of December 19, 1906, addressed to me at 
Nashville, received. Allow me, first of all, to 
thank you for the deep interest you manifest in 
my spiritual welfare. I am always willing- to re- 
ceive spiritual instruction from strang-ers or from 
any one else. The truth is appreciated by me at 
all times when received from strang-ers as well as 
when received from a friend. In fact, he who gives 
me spiritual Hg-ht is my friend. I am real giad of 
your voluntary offer to help me in the investigation 
of spiritual matters. While it is true I am no 
long-er a Methodist, yet I am more than anxious, 
with your assistance, to look at the % 'matter from 
an entirely different standpoint." I assure you the 
truth is all I want, and I promise you that if you 
show from the Bible that the point under investi- 
gation between Mr. Clement and me is authorized 
by the Lord, I will teach and practice the same. 

Mr. Loveil, the pastor; Mr. Clement, the presid- 
ing- elder; and Mr. Galloway, the bishop, and the 
head of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
failed to sustain their doctrine and practice, which 
was a very great surprise to me, and which did 
much to cause me to abandon my long- heart-cher- 
ished doctrine and church. If the great, greater, 
and greatest in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, cannot sustain its doctrine, the teaching- 
must be very weak. I confess I was surprised to 



63 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

find it as weak as it is and to see its strongest ad- 
vocates lay down their pen and give up the fight 
when God's eternal truth was brought against their 
doctrine. Before my investigation with these three 
great leaders in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, it would have been an insult to me if one 
had told me that the Methodist doctrine is as weak 
as I find it, or that its strongest advocates could 
have been driven from the battle field so easily. I 
am perfectly willing to accept your standing 
without any inquiry; for the position you hold is 
sufficient as to 3 T our standing, and your writings 
speak for your knowledge and understanding of the 
Bible. 

Yes, Mr. Clement was, and is, able to take care 
of himself, and so was Mr. Lovell and the bishop; 
but all combined were not able to take care of the 
Methodist doctrine. They took care of themselves 
by abandoning the investigation and leaving the 
battle field. 

You cannot justify Mr. Clement's failure by 
trying to show that I limited his field in which to 
find authority for the practice of infant baptism to 
"plain commands or examples," for I did not do 
this. His field for finding authority for infant 
baptism was not limited, only he was required to 
get the authority from the Bible. Here is my prop- 
osition to Mr. Clement: "If you will keep vour 
promise and give me the scripture which shows the 
time when, and the place where, Christ authorized 
infant baptism or that the apostles practiced it, I 
will give you the ten dollars in gold." This gave 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. f>4 

him the broadest field possible in which to find his 
practice. The words "authorized" or "practiced" 
include not only commands and examples, but pre- 
cepts and necessary inference. But even after 
giving him this broad field in which to find his 
practice, he failed to find infant baptism in the 
Bible, notwithstanding- he stated in his discourse 
during- the quarterly meeting- that "there is no 
more scripture for anything- than there is for infant 
baptism." I asked him for the scripture authori- 
zing- his statement, and he was unable to give it, 
either by express command, example, precept, or 
necessary inference. So you cannot justify Mr. 
Clement's failure by trying- to make the impression 
that I narrowed the field in which to find infant 
baptism to a specific command or example. His 
field was as broad and as wide as the Bible. 

If Mr. Clement wants to teach nothing- but what 
is in the Bible and not practice deception in his 
teaching-, he should give the scripture authorizing- 
his statement or return to the place where the 
statement was made and correct it. Honesty de- 
mands his doing- one or the other. Do you not 
think so? 

The three questions you desire me to ask my 
friend introduces three new subjects, neither of 
which has anything- to do with the one discussed 
with Mr. Clement. The question discussed with 
him was infant baptism, and not the ones intro- 
duced by your questions. "Immersion in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Spirit;" "women taking* the communion," and 



b5 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE). 

"taking- the communion every Lord's day" were 
not the subjects under consideration between Mr. 
Clement and me. These are three different and 
distinct questions, neither of which was discussed 
with Mr. Clement. I asked Mr. Clement to assist 
me in the study of infant baptism, and not in the 
three subjects introduced by your three questions. 
If you desire, these three subjects will be discussed 
at the proper time; but let us investigate one at a 
time, and in the order in which they come. Infant 
baptism was the question discussed between Mr. 
Clement and me, and is, therefore, the first in 
order. 

But you say: "If you or your friend will furnish 
me Bible proof of these three thing's, then I will 
show you a Bible example for infant baptism with- 
out the ten dollars in g-old or any other reward." 
Whether I or my friend can or cannot show Bible 
authority for these three thing's was not under con- 
sideration in the discussion with Mr. Clement and 
has nothing- to do with your showing- or not show- 
ings a Bible example of infant baptism. If there is 
a Bible example of infant baptism, you can produce 
it whether these other thing-s are true or false. If 
you can produce a Bible example of infant baptism 
by the Bible proof of these other thing's, you can 
produce it without such proof. If the example of 
infant baptism is in the Bible at all, it is there 
whether the other three practices are found in the 
Bible or not. So introduce the example of infant 
baptism from the Bible, and we will drop this sub- 
ject and immediately take up the other three ques- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. bh 

tions in their order. I will not limit you, except 
the proof must come from the Bible. I will place 
the proposition before you just as I placed it before 
Mr. Clement: "Can you produce the scripture that 
shows the time when, and the place where, Christ 
or the apostles authorized or practiced infant bap- 
tism?" My friend writes me that he extends 
through me his ten-dollar offer to you or any one in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, who will 
introduce Bible authority for the practice of infant 
baptism. 

I receved the "little book on 'The Mode of Water 
Baptism.'" I read it, and think it deserves some 
attention, which I will give at the proper time. 
Thanks for the book. Yours sincerely, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Term., January 21, 1907. — Miss Nora 
Yount, Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Dear Madam: Yours 
of January 14 received and carefully read. It 
seems that you missed the purpose of my proposi- 
tion entirely. You go back to the proposition that 
you made to another party, wanting- me to take 
that up. I proposed that }~ou ki look at the mat- 
ter from an entirely different standpoint.]' I put 
the question on a general plan. Here is the 
basis of that plan; If you expect other people 
to give plain and positive Bible proof for all they 
believe and practice, then, if you would be con- 
sistent, you must give the same kind of proof 
for all 3'ou believe and practice. It is perfectly fair 
to apply this general rule to all subjects. So that 
if I fail to show plain and unmistakable scripture 
for infant baptism, and you fail to show such 
scripture for anything you believe or practice, you 
have no right to criticise me. If you give Bible 
evidence for all you believe or practice, and I fail 
to give such evidence for one thing which I believe 
or practice, then I am defeated, on that one subject 
at least, and should come over to your side. 

Is this method of reasoning justified by the 
Scriptures? Let us see. Read Mark 11:27-33. 
There you find the scribes and elders asking Jesus 
by what authority he did certain things. He asked 
them if the baptism of John was from heaven or of 
men. Because of their refusal to answer him, Jesus 
said: "Neither do I tell vou bv what authority I do 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 68 

these things." The apostle Paul uses the same 
method of argument. "Therefore thou art inex- 
cusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: 
for wherein thou judg-est another, thou condemnest 
thyself; for thou that judg-est doest the same thing-s." 
(Rom. 2:1.) The whole of the second chapter of 
Romans is an argument along the same line. I am 
under no obligations to try to prove the propo- 
sition you made to another unless I assume to do 
so. That I have not assumed. In our correspond- 
ence my proposition stands first. Here is the sub- 
stance of my proposition put in the form of your 
proposition: If you will give the scripture which 
shows the time when, and the place where, Christ 
authorized* or the apostles practiced, immersion, 
giving communion to women, or the duty of taking 
the communion every Sunday, or Lord's day, then I 
will show you the same kind of proof for infant 
baptism. 

"The words 'authorized' and 'practiced' include 
not only commands and examples, but precepts and 
necessary inferences." Such is your additional 
statement as to the latitude in making proof. If 
you want to take it that way, I will propose to fur- 
nish as strong proof by "necessary inference" on 
infant baptism as you or any person in your church 
can offer for the three practices which I have men- 
tioned. 

It is entirely unnecessary to undertake to prove 
infant baptism, by any sort of proof, to a large 
majority of the people of your church. (1) They, 
demand an argument that is satisfactory to them- 



69 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

selves. (2 I They always want a Methodist to show 
a scripture specifically naming- the doctrine or prac- 
tice and authorizing- it by command, example, or 
necessary inference, allowing- them to be the judge 
of what constitutes a command, example, or "nec- 
essary inference." (3) There is no scripture direct- 
ly authorizing the practice of infant baptism. 

I am g-lad you limit me to the Bible for proof on 
this subject. The people who take the Bible for 
what it says, without note or comment, are the 
easiest people in the world to answer in an argu- 
ment. (1 : Such people always believe or practice 
some thing-s which they cannot prove by such a 
method of argument. > 2 I I can prove some things 
bv such a method of arg-ument that such people 
never practice. 3 If the Bible is to be taken as 
it reads, without note or comment, then it is not 
necessary to preach the gospel. Simply teach the 
people to read, and let each read it for himself. 

"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed 
vour feet; ve also ought to wash one another's feet.. 
For I have given vou an example, that ve should 
do as I have done to you." John. 13:14,15. I On 
the same night Christ instituted the communion 
he washed the apostles' feet and commanded them 
to wash each other's feet, saying he had given them 
an example to follow. The apostles never washed 
*'one another's feet," neither does vour church prac- 
tice it. I can prove bv a literal interpretation of 
the Bible that a man who loves his father and 
mother cannot be a disciple of Christ. ,4 If any man 
com- to me, and hate not his father, and mother. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 70 

and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, 
yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 
(Luke 14:26.) 

You have left the Methodists because they prac- 
tice some things not authorized by the Bible. Have 
you grained anything- by going- into another church 
where they also practice some thing's not authorized 
by the Bible? 

You have been g-iven some g-ood arguments for 
infant baptism, but you do not accept them as argu- 
ments at all. Herein lies the reason why no scrip- 
tural discussion is ever complete or conclusive. 
There is no impartial and disinterested person to 
decide the matter. In any case broug-ht before a 
civil court the interested parties are never allowed 
to have any say as to what is competent evidence 
or what verdict the evidence justifies. An impar- 
tial court and jury must decide those thing-s. I do 
not believe or practice anything- in a religious way 
that I cannot prove by the Bible to my satisfaction. 
I do believe and practice several things that I can- 
not prove to the satisfaction of a number of people 
who are as intelligent and pious as myself. It is 
always safe to offer any reward for proof of any 
religious doctrine. It would be perfectly safe for 
me to offer one thousand dollars reward for Bible 
proof that immersion is the only mode of baptism; 
because I would be the judge of the proof, and no 
man can prove it according to my way of reasoning. 
If I should allow the other party to be judge of the 
proof, then I could not offer a penny. These doc- 
trines are a matter of opinion. I can show Bible 



71 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

authority for infant baptism to some people; to 
other people of equal intelligence and piety I can- 
not show even a hint of such a practicin the Bible. 
It is easy to see things in the Bible when we believe 
they are there; when we do not believe they are 
there, it is well-nigh impossible to see them. 

Let me give you some general suggestions on Bi- 
ble study and Bible doctrine. People generally do 
not believe what the Bible teaches, but the Bible 
teaches what they believe. That is just as true of 
your people as of the Methodists and others. God 
spoke to man through an imperfect lang-uage, be- 
cause man could not understand a perfect language. 
Therefore the Bible is perfect in the principles 
which it sets forth, but not perfect in the manner 
of its expression. The Bible was written to teach 
principles, and not as a set of rules to show men 
how to do thing-s. Any man of ordinary ability 
can put more specific rules in a tract of a dozen 
pages than may be found in all the book of God. 
If the Bible was intended to give specific rules for 
doing thing-s, the translators and revisers of the 
Bible have made a great mistake, because they did 
not express thing-s in such a way and in such lan- 
g-uag-e as mig-ht not be easily misunderstood. 

I have read your reasons for leaving the Metho- 
dist Church, and will write a criticism and correc- 
tion of them and send you in a few days. 

If you desire to write a criticism on my book on 
"The Mode of Water Baptism," I will be glad to 
receive it. Yours respectfully, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 



LETTER PROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., February 7, 1907.— Mr. 
Georg-e W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
Yours of January 21 before me. When one cr owds 
himself into a discussion unsolicited, it is his duty 
to discuss the proposition that is under considera- 
tion at that time. If he is not willing- to do t his, 
then he should not seek to enter in. Infant bap- 
tism was the question being- discussed with Mr. 
Clement at the time you offered your assistance, 
and it is to this subject you owe your respect. In 
your first letter you said: "Will you pardon a stran- 
g-er for coming- in and offering- to help you?" While 
I am perfectly willing" to receive lig-ht on Bible top- 
ics at all times, yet I am inclined to think you 
would better help the pastor, the presiding- elder, 
and the bishop; and unless you make a better de- 
fense in the future than you have in the past, you 
would better g-et some one to help you. I do not 
need help on the three new subjects which you seek 
to introduce and which were not under consideration 
with Mr. Clement when you took up this discussion; 
but I do need help on the practice of infant baptism, 
provided it is in the Bible. Since you propose to 
help me, it is your duty to lend your help on those 
thing's wherein I need help. But since you admit 
that infant baptism is not authorized in the Bible 
by saying - , "There is no scripture directly authoriz- 
ing- the practice of infant baptism," I cannot hope 
to receive the desired information from you. You 
deserve great honor and credit for making- this con- 



. . ; AX INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Session. If you will be just as honest in ceasing 
the practice of what you admit is not authorized in 
the Bible, then there will be some hope of vour sal- 
vation. You are learning- "the way of the Lord more 
perfectly;" and if you advance in the future as rap- 
idly as you have in the past, it will not be long- be- 
fore I will sing the g-ood old song, "Come. Humble 
Sinner. " and receive you into full fellowship. Since 
your noble confession. I suggest that you write an- 
other tract, correcting your teaching on infant bap- 
tism in the tract you published in 1906. You owe 
this to the public, to yourself, and to God. Write 
it and tell the people you were mistaken when you 
fce the tract and said: "Those who are so anx- 
ious to follow Christ should follow the example of 
his parents and have their children baptized, and 
therebv recognize them as members of his kingdom 
in infancy." "The Mode of Water Baptism." 
page 13. But I do not know what the presiding 
elder will do. for he said. "There is no more scrip- 
ture for anything than there is for infant baptism." 
and then tried to prove it. 

If I were wholly unable to give Bible authority 
for what I believe or practice, this would have 
nothing to do with your defeat in any way. If you 
fail to produce Bible evidence on what you believe 
or practice, vou are defeated whether I can or can- 
not produce scripture sustaining my faith or prac- 
tice. This you surelv can see. One unscriptural 
practice in one partv does not justify an unscrip- 
tural practice in another party, and therefore you 
are wrong in trying to justify your false practice 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 74 

in such a style. Should I steal fifty dollars, this 
would not justify you in murdering" your fellow - 
man. You should set yoursef rig-ht by ceasing* to 
practice unscriptural thing-s, and persuade others to 
do likewise. By doing- the latter you please God; by 
doing- the former you please the evil one. Relative 
to the three new subjects you seek to introduce, I 
will speak of them in due time. 

Of course, it would be "entirely unnecessary to 
undertake to prove infant baptism, by any sort of 
proof," to the people of God, when you admit that 
" there is no scripture directly authorizing - the 
practice." In commenting- on the expression, "the 
people of your church," it will suffice to say I have 
no church. The church we read about in the Bible 
and of which I am a member is the church of Christ 
— the church of God. Christ said: "Upon this rock 
I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail ag-ainst it." (Matt. 16:18,) Paul says: 
"The churches of Christ salute you," (Rom. 16:16.) 
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth." 
(1 Cor, 1:2,) "Give none offense, neither to the 
Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 
(lCor. 10:32.) "But if any man seem to be con- 
tentious, we have no such custom, neither the 
churches of God." (lCor. 11:16.) "For I am the 
least of the aposti^s, that atn not meet to be called 
an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." 
(lCor. 15:9.) "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ 
by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto 
the church of God which is at Corinth." (2 Cor, 
1:1,) "I persecuted the church of God." (Gal, 1:13, j 



75 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

"For if a man know not how to rule his own house, 
how shall he take care of the church of God?" 
(1 Tim. 3:5.) "These thing-s write I unto thee, 
hoping- to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry 
long 1 , that thou mayest know how thou oug*htest to 
behave thyself in the house of God, which is the 
church of the living* God, the pillar and ground of 
the truth." (Verses 14,15.) 

Yes, one who read the "Interesting* Correspond- 
ence" in the Gospel Advocate knows how easy it is 
to answer one who takes the Bible without note or 
comment. The pastor, the presiding* elder, and the 
bishop had almost as easy a task as you are having*. 

You quote Luke 14:26 to prove that if one loves 
his father and mother, he cannot be a disciple of 
Christ. I would be both afraid and ashamed to 
place such teaching* before the public. I would be 
afraid of making infidels and receiving* the curse of 
God, and ashamed for an intellig*ent public to see 
my misunderstanding* and false application of the 
word of the Lord. Why did you not g*ive the par- 
allel passage in Matt. 10:37? "He that loveth 
father or mother more than me is not worthy of 
me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than 
me is not worthy of me." Had you done this, your 
readers could have seen that the word "hate" is 
used in the sense of "love less." I refer to this, 
not because it has any bearing on the question in 
discussion, but to prevent your perversion of scrip- 
ture from making* skeptics and infidels. 

You ask: "Have you g*ained anything* by g*oingf 
into another church where they also practice some 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 76 

thing's not authorized by the Bible?" Had I done 
this, I would not have g-ained a thing-; but the 
church of which I am a member practices nothing- 
not authorized by the word of the Lord. By leav- 
ing- a human institution, doctrines and command- 
ments of men, and accepting- an institution ordained 
of God and sealed by the blood of Christ by obey- 
ing- the doctrine and commandments of Christ, I 
have g-ained the approval of Heaven and a home 
with the redeemed, if I will only hold out faithful 
to the end, which I hope to do. 

I cannot harmonize the expression, "You have 
been given some g-ood arg-uments for infant bap- 
tism," with the expression, "There is no scripture 
directly authorizing- the practice." Can you? 

A religious discussion is not to be decided like a 
case in court. ... In religious discussions each 
disputant produces his arg-uments, and the hearers 
judg-e and decide for themselves. This is as it 
should be. 

You say: "I do not believe or practice anything- 
in a religious way that I cannot prove by the Bible 
to my satisfaction." In this you are mistaken, 
or else you have misrepresented the facts elsewhere. 
You believe in and practice infant baptism, and yet 
you say: "There is no scripture directly authorizing- 
the practice." How can you prove a thing- by the 
Bible to your own "satisfaction" when the thing- 
is not in the Bible? If you can do this, you are 
easily satisfied. 

Since you think you would be an unjust judg-e 
relative to a one-thousand-dollar reward for Bible 



/ / AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

proof of immersion, suppose we make a small 
chang-e and let the scholars of the pedobaptists who 
have written on the question be both the witness 
and the judge. If you are willing- to do this, and 
if you will secure one thousand dollars in a first- 
class bank in your town, payable to me when I in- 
troduce proof from the pedobaptist scholars that 
the Greek word "baptidzo" means immersion and 
that this was the practice of the apostles and first 
Christians. I will undertake the task of producing 
the evidence from their writings. I wait to see 
how strong- your faith is on the proposition. 

You say: "I can show Bible authority for infant 
baptism to some people." How can you do this. 
since you admit the Bible does not authorize the 
practice? 

"People generallv do not believe what the Bible 
teaches, but the Bible teaches what they believe." 
is another error. If vou had said. "Methodist 
preachers generally do not believe what the Bible 
teaches." you would have "hit the nail on the 
head." "The Bible teaches what they believe" is 
not true in your case. You believe in infant bap- 
tism, yet you say: "There is no scripture directly 
authorizing the practice." 

Relative to the words "your people." it will suf- 
fice to say I have no p-ople religiously. The ones 
vou refer to are God's people, not mine. 

You say: "The Bible was written to teach princi- 
ples, and not as a set of rules to show men how to 
do things." I suggest that it was written for both 
purposes. Moses made the tabernacle according to 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 78 

the pattern shown him in the mount. "Look that 
thou make them after their pattern, which was 
showed thee in the mount." (Ex. 25:40.) Paul 
says: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of 
heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God 
when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, 
saith he, that thou make all things according to 
the pattern showed to thee in the mount." (Heb. 
8:5.) Christians are to walk by the rule laid down 
in the New Testament. "As many as walk accord- 
ing to this rule." (Gal. 6:16.) "Let us walk by 
the same rule, let us mind the same thing." (Phil. 
3:16.) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" 
(Mark 16:16) — this is the rule given by the Lord; 
and, "We are buried with him by baptism" (Rom. 
6:4) — this is the pattern given by the apostle. 
You disagree with the Lord when }^ou teach that 
the Bible is so constructed as to be "easily mis- 
understood." In speaking of the highway of holi- 
ness, the Lord, through the prophet, said: "A 
highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be 
called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not 
pass over it: but it shall be for those: the wayfar- 
ing men, though fools, shall not err therein." (Isa. 
35:8.) He who cannot see the way as mapped out 
in the New Testament is of a lower class, intel- 
lectually, than a fool. The Bible is a "perfect law 
of liberty." (James 1:25.) It thoroughly fur- 
nishes the man of God "unto all good works." 
(2 Tim. 3:16,17.) When Methodist preachers can- 
not find infant baptism in the Bible, they should 



7^ AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

understand that it is not a good work, and, there- 
fore, should not practice it. 

Since you admit that infant baptism is not 
authorized in the Bible, I have g-ained the victory 
at this point, and am now ready to consider your 
criticism of nry reasons for leaving- the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. My criticism of your 
book will come in its due season. 

Your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., March 15, 1907.— Dear Miss 
Yount: Your last letter on infant baptism was re- 
ceived in due time. I have also recived jour notes 
of February 25, March 5, and March 12. 

You accuse me of violating- the rules of discus- 
sion. Whose rules are you going- by? Please refer 
me to pag-e and number of the book of rules which 
you are following-. 

The three letters criticising- your reasons for 
leaving- the Methodist Church were all one messag-e. 
I divided it because of its length. I did not men- 
tion the other correspondence, because I wanted 
to keep the two subjects separate. 

On the last pag-e of yours of February 7, I read: 
"I have g-ained the victory at this point, and am 
now ready to consider your criticism of my reasons 
for leaving- the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South." That looks like you did not expect an 
answer to your letter. It was after that you criti- 
cised me for writing- on your reasons for leaving- 
the church before answering- your letter. 

Your last on infant baptism needs no answer, be- 
cause you do not accept my proposition. In your 
first you thanked me for my interest and declared 
your willing-ness to look at the matter from "an en- 
tirely different standpoint." Later you wrote about 
me pushing- myself into the discussion and declared 
it my duty to stick to the subject under discussion 
when I came in. How could we look at the matter 
from an entirelv different standpoint bv continuing 



81 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

the same old discussion? It would not be easy to 
misunderstand my proposition. At first I attempt- 
ed to show you this principle: If the Methodist 
Church believes and practices one thing- which is 
unscriptural, and the church of Christ believes and 
practices another thing- which is also unscriptural, 
one of the churches is as near rig-ht as the other, 
and neither has a rig-ht to criticise the other for its 
unscriptural practice. Finding- that you propose 
to prove all the church of Christ believes and prac- 
tices, I then proposed to offer the same kind of ar- 
gument for infant baptism that you will offer for 
immersion, women taking communion, or the duty 
of taking- communion every Sunday, or Lord's day. 
Unless you will accept my proposition or make one 
that I will accept, nothing- more need be said on the 
subject. I was satisfied at the beg-inning- that no 
person in the church of Christ would accept my 
challeng-e or proposition, because they know that 
there is not a sing-le scripture mentioning- the fact 
of women taking- the communion. They know, also, 
that there are several thing's taug-ht by Christ and 
the apostles which they do not practice. You say 
that if you steal, that would not justify me in com- 
mitting- murder. That is true. At the same time, 
one criminal has no rig-ht to criticise or prosecute 
another because his offense is different. They are 
both violaters of the law and liable to punishment. 
If you cannot make plainer and strong-er proof for 
what you believe and practice than I can for what 
I believe and practice, then I am just as g'ood, both 
in faith and practice, as you are, no difference how 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 82 

far I may be from the Bible standard. 

You say that Matt. 10:37 is a parallel passage 
with Luke 14:26. It may be, but the Bible does not 
say so. Neither does the Bible say that the word 
"hate," as used in Luke 14:26, is used in the sense 
of "love less." 

... In saying - that the Bible is easily understood, 
you lay claim to inspiration and indirectly accuse a 
larg-e majority of Christians of being- either igno- 
rant or mean. There are, in round numbers, 20,000,- 
000 church members in the United States. Less 
than 1,000,000 belong- to the church of Christ. So 
19,000,000 do not agree with vou on Bible doctrines. 
Now if these 19,000,000 do not know anv better, 
then they are ignorant. If they know better and 
refuse to do it, then they are mean. There is not 
a great scholar, either from a literary or biblical 
standpoint, in the church of Christ. Alexander 
Campbell is the only scholar of national reputation 
the church ever had. They are ashamed of him, 
because they do not like to be called ' 'Campbellites. " 

Writing- of the simplicity of the Bible, you quote 
Isa. 35:8: "The wayfaring- men, thoug-h fools, shall 
not err therein." You then add: "He who cannot 
see the way as mapped out in the New Testament 
is of a lower class intellectually than the fool." 
What about yourself? Strang-e that you never learn- 
ed any part of the way until last September. Your 
friend who wrote the introductory to the ' 'Interesting- 
Correspondence" says vou are a woman of more 
than ordinary ability. You were teaching- school 
when he met vou. And vet vou had never learned 



83 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

''the way as mapped out in the New Testament," 
though it is so plain that "a fool need not err there- 
in." It will not do at all to say that the Metho- 
dist preachers or the Methodist Church had not 
taug-ht you right. You surely had read the New 
Testament. That is sufficient if the way is as plain 
as you represent it to be. 

Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nacelles. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., March 29, 1907.— Mr. 
George W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
Yours of March 15 received. It is harder to get you 
to answer a letter than it is to conduct a discussion. 
You have not yet answered mine of February 7. 
Yours now before me is an answer to my three 
notes, and not a reply to my letter of February 7. 
I wonder if you did think you could work such a 
trick on me? I did not ask you to answer the notes. 
I asked you in these notes to answer the letter of 
February 7, but you answered the notes and not the 
letter. I was ready at the close of my letter of 
February 7 to receive your criticism of my reasons 
for leaving- your denomination, but there were some 
things in said letter that I was not ready nor will- 
ing- for you to ignore. As far as infant baptism is 
concerned, I was ready to receive your criticism, 
and so stated. But what about that one thousand 
dollars you failed to mention? Please let me know 
when you get it in the bank. . . . 

Yes, you voluntarily entered into this discussion, 
and since you say, "Unless you will accept my prop- 
osition or make one that I will accept, nothing more 
need be said," I reach the conclusion that you would 
like to drop out. I myself think you had as well 
drop out, since you admit that "there is no scripture 
directly authorizing the practice of infant baptism." 
You cannot hope to defend the practice with this 
admission before you. Perhaps Lovell, Clement, 
and the bishop could give you a lesson on how to pull 



85 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

out of a discussion, since it has been but a short 
time since thej did the same thing. 

You ask: "How could we look at the matter from 
an entirely different standpoint by continuing- the 
same old subject?" I ask: "How could we look at 
tli : matter from an entirely different standpoint" by 
discontinuing- "the same old subject" and jumping- 
onto new subjects? Infant baptism was the subject 
under consideration when you entered into this dis- 
cussion, and it will be the subject when you drop 
out. 

If all that the church of Christ teaches or prac- 
tices is false, this would not prove infant baptism 
scriptural nor justify you in the practice. The 
practice must stand or fall by the Bible. I repeat 
that should I steal fifty dollars, this would not jus- 
tify you in murdering- your fellow-man. Should 
we commit these crimes, you mig-ht be as g-ood as 
I, but my wrong- (stealing- the fifty dollars) would 
not prove you innocent nor justify your deed. No 
just court would hold you g-uiltless on such a plea. 
Neither will God. It is foolishness personified to 
try to establish infant baptism on such an arg-ument. 
Your premise is false, and your arg-ument is as 
false as the premise. Such premise and arg-ument 
are on the sand. You know this is true. You are 
only putting- in such to take up time and space. 

Since you admit that the Scriptures do not au- 
thorize infant baptism, what are you gfoing- to do 
with your tract which sets forth infant baptism? 
Do you not think it will be wrong- to let the tract 
g-o as it is? It seems to me you ougmt to do some- 



AW INTERESTING COR ^CPGITBENCK. 86 

thing- in the way of correcting- the false teaching- it 
sets forth on infant baptism. . . . 

I lay no claims to inspiration. I have none. It 
does not require an inspired person to see ^nd travel 
the road to heaven. Relative to the fool not erring- 
in this, you ask: "What about yourself ?" The fact 
that I saw the true way as laid down in the New 
Testament and walked therein is evidence that I 
am not the fool of which you speak. 

Yes, my friend, in his introductory to the "Inter- 
esting- Correspondence," passed a compliment on 
me by saying- that I was "above an averag-e in in- 
tellect," but I am not responsible for his doing- so; 
and I see no reason why you should worry over this 
matter, for I feel sure that he would pass the same 
compliment on you, if he could do so and at the 
same time tell the truth. 

Yes, I was teaching- school when I beg-an to see 
the true teaching- of the Bible. But school-teachers, 
as well as other intelligent persons, sometimes do 
foolish thing-s, and then do thing-s which are not 
foolish. The foolish thing- I did was to allow 
myself to be g-uided by the "Discipline" and false 
teaching- of sectarian preachers instead of being- 
g-uided by the word of the Lord. The wise thing- 
I did was dropping- the "Discipline" and false teach- 
ers and their teaching- and following- the word of the 
Lord. I have seen men who thoug-ht they were very 
wise and intelligent, and yet do as foolish a thing- as 
to try to prove infant baptism by the Bible. I 
knew of one man who was intelligent enoug-h to write 
a large book of twenty-four pages on "The Mode of 



^7 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Water Baptism," and do the foolish thing- of setting- 
forth infant baptism in said book; then, later, wise 
enoug'h to press into a discussion after three others 
had abandoned their breastworks, retreated, and 
g-one home to their families; and then do as foolish 
a thing- as to admit that the Bible does not "directly 
authorize infant baptism." I simply refer to this 
to remind you of the fact that sometimes people 
who think themselves wise and follow other occu- 
pations besides teaching- school can do foolish 
thing-s the same as school-teachers. 

You sa} r : "If these nineteen million do not know 
any better, then they are ignorant. If they know 
better and refuse to do it, then thej^ are mean." 
The four Methodist preachers represented in this 
discussion are included in this nineteen million. 
Three of them have already learned that infant 
baptism is not authorized by the Lord, and the 
fourth one is learning- the lesson as fast as could 
be expected of a beginner, and before this discus- 
sion is ended he will have been well drilled. He 
has already advanced far enoug-h to see that the 
Bible does not "directly authorize infant baptism." 
I have taug-ht a great man}' classes, but I believe I 
never had a class to advance as rapidly as my theo- 
logical class — three already graduated and g-one 
home, and the fourth one about ready to call for his 
diploma. I think he will put in his application 
soon. These four preachers out of the nineteen 
million know better than to practice infant baptism, 
from the fact that they learned better while in my 
Bible class. Hence, if they teach and practice in- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 88 

fant baptism in the future, we know it cannot be 
attributed to ignorance. You g-ive two reasons for 
false teaching- and practice — viz., ig-norance and 
meanness. Now it depends upon jour future prac- 
tice as to which class you belong*. It cannot be 
ig-norance, for you know better. 

The big- crowd does not help you any, from the 
fact that the evil one has had the big - crowd with 
him since the fall of man in the g-arden of Eden. 
There were only seven who agreed with Noah. 
Noah and the seven were saved; the big* crowd was 
destroyed. The big- crowd will be destroyed in the 
last day, according- to the New Testament. 

I do not refuse to be called a "Campbellite" be- 
cause I am ashamed of Alexander Campbell, but 
because I am ashamed to be called by a name the 
Lord did not give to his children. If you are not 
ashamed to wear a name the Lord did not give, 
you should be. One reason I dropped the name 
"Methodist" was because I could not find it in 
the Bible. Can you? If not,' then why do you 
wear it? 

You seem to be very confident that no one in the 
church of Christ will accept your proposition rela- 
tive to immersion, women taking- the communion, 
and taking- the communion on each Lord's day. 
You refer to this as thoug-h you thoug-ht you had 
won a g-olden victory. But I am inclined to think 
that you can be taug-ht a few lessons on these points. 
In your letter of December 19 you requested me to 
question my friend in reference to three questions, 
as follows: "(1; For one Bible example where my 



8^ AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

person was immersed in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. (2) For one Bible example 
where women took the communion. (3) For one 
Bible command for taking- the communion every 
Sunday, or Lord's day. 1 ' I consulted him as you 
requested relative to these three questions, and the 
following is his reply: 

"Phoenix, Ariz., February 28,1907. — Miss Nora 
Yount, Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Dear Sister Nora,: 
Yours of recent date received. With much pleasure I 
answer the three questions propounded by Mr. Nack- 
les. He, as Methodist preachers generally do, setks 
to cloud and darken truth in framing his questions, 
rather than to turn on spiritual light. He certain- 
ly knows that it is unfair and scripturally wrong to 
frame a set of questions and put the command for 
the example and the example for the command, 
which thing he did in his questions. If he desired 
the whole truth, then why did he substitute the 
command for the example and the example for the 
command? The fact that he did this is evidence 
that he is not willing to seek and accept the truth, 
and the truth only. 

"There are four ways to get Bible authority for 
faith in, and the practice of, a thing — viz.: com- 
mand, example, precept, and necessary inference. 
If Mr. Nackles had desired nothing but the truth 
as revealed in the Bible, he would have embraced 
these four ways in his questions instead of limiting 
them to commands and examples. Then he would 
not have substituted the command for the example 
and the example for the command. But this is his 



:\:;d interesting correspondence. 90 

style of seeking- advantage and darkening- counsel. 
However, I believe I can give the g-entleman some 
thing's to think about. 

"Relative to his first question, my .first witness 
is Mr. Nackles himself. I suppose he will accept his 
own teaching- as g-ood authority. Mr. Nackles, in his 
tract, ('The Mode of Water Baptism,' page 16, ) 
says: 'The Methodist Church not only allows im- 
mersion, but makes it the duty of her ministers to 
immerse those who desire it.' Do the Methodists 
baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit? Mr. Nackles, in his tract, page 12, says: 'It 
is not Christian baptism unless it is done in the 
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' Can 
Mr. Nackles prove his faith and practice on these 
points? He, in his letter to you of January 21, 
says: 'I do not believe or practice anything- in a 
relig-ious way that I cannot prove by the Bible to 
my satisfaction.' If he expressed the truth in these 
quotations, then he can answer his own question; so 
why is he asking- me to prove a thing- he practices and 
admits he can prove by the Bible? If there is no 
authority for immersion in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, then Mr. Nackles believes a 
falsehood, teaches a falsehood, and practices a 
falsehood in the teaching- and practice of immer- 
sion, and also expressed a falsehood when he said 
he could prove his teaching- and practice by the 
Bible. He can take either horn of the dilemma he 
wishes. If he expressed the truth when he said he 
could prove all he believes and practices by the Bible, 
then immersion into the name of the Father, Son, 



91 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

and Holy Spirit is authorized by the Bible. If it is 
not authorized by the Bible, then he misrepresented 
the truth by saying- he could prove all he believes 
and practices by the Bible. 

1 'But he hangs himself ag-ain. In his tract, pag-e 
11, Mr. Nackles says: 'Immersionists would impress 
those who are ig-norant of the Scriptures that im- 
mersion may be found almost any place and sprin- 
kling- is not mentioned. The truth is that sprinkling 
is mentioned a number of times and immersion is 
not found in the book.' He would have his readers 
believe that sprinkling- for baptism is authorized 
by the Lord and immersion is not. If 'immersion 
. is not found in the book,' as he says, then how can 
he prove all he believes and practices by the Bible? 
If he expressed the truth when he said he could 
prove all his faith and practice by the Bible, then 
immersion is in the Book. If it is not in the Book, 
as he says, then he did not express the truth when 
he said he could prove all he believes and practices 
by the Bible. Here, as above, he can take either 
horn of the dilemma. 

"But what about sprinkling- being- found a number 
of times for baptism in the Bible? Mr. Nackles, 
in his tract, pag-e 16, says: 'It is a mistake to assert 
that affusion can be proven. That is neither Metho- 
distic nor biblical.' This author defines the word 
'affusion.' In his tract, pag-e 2, he says: '"Affu- 
sion" means to pour or sprinkle a liquid on a person. ' 
Here he contradicts himself ag-ain. How can it be 
'a mistake to assert that affusion can be proven,' if 
it is found in the Bible, as he says? But since he 



AN INTERESTING COP DESPONDENCE. 92 

admits that affusion cannot be proven, then the 
statement that he can prove all he believes or prac- 
tices by the Bible is not true. If it is a mistake to 
make such an assertion, then it is a mistake to 
teach and to practice it, and he should quit it, from 
the fact that 'to him that knoweth to do g-ood, and 
doeth it not, to him it is sin.' (James 4:17.) Mr. 
Nackles knows better than he is doing-. He should 
repent of writing- his tract and call it in if 'it is a 
mistake to assert that affusion can be proven,' from 
the fact that it sets forth affusion. 

"My next witnesses are Paul and John Wesley. 
Paul says: 'We are buried with him by baptism.' 
(Rom 6:4.) Wesley, in commenting- on this, says: 
'Alluding- to the ancient manner of baptizing- by im- 
mersion.' ('Notes on the New Testament.') If Paul 
and Wesley told the truth, and I believe they did, I 
have furnished not only one example of immersion, 
but several, for Paul included himself with the 
Romans in the expression, 'We are buried with him 
by baptism;' and Wesley explains it — 'Alluding- to 
the ancient manner of baptizing- by immersion.' 
I wonder if Mr. Nackles will believe Paxil and 
Wesley? He may g-o back on Paul, but surely he 
will not turn Mr. Wesley, the founder of the Meth- 
odist Church, down. 

"This bring-s me to the second question. Relative 
to women's taking- the communion, I introduce Mr. 
Nackles and the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. Mr. Nackles and the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, gives the communion to tit.* women, 
and he says: k I do not believe or practice anything- 



93 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENT 1 :. 

in a religious way that I cannot prove by the Bible 
to my satisfaction/ Is the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, scriptural in practice, and did Mr. 
Nackles express the truth? If so, why should I in- 
troduce another witness? 

"It is foolishness for one to demand Bible proof 
of another for a thing- that he himself believes and 
practices, and which he says he can prove by the 
Bible to his satisfaction. This is worse tnan child's 
play. Mr. Green, in his letter to you of January 21, 
says: 'I can prove everything- I teach by the Bible/ 
Since Mr. Green and Mr. Nackles are brethren and 
agree on what they can prove relative to their faith 
and practice, and since they both give the Lord's 
Supper to the women, it is as much their duty to 
prove the practice as it is ours; and we have just as 
much rig-ht to demand the proof of them as they 
have to demand it of us. But why demand proof of 
a thing - , when both teach and practice that thing- 
and both admit it can be proven? 

"But suppose there was no proof for the practice 
included in the first and second questions, what 
would Mr. Nackles g-am in this discussion? Not 
one thing-, from the fact that it would prove his 
faith and practice unscriptural in both instances, 
and his statement that he can prove all he believes 
or practices by the Bible false. So the only thing's 
I can see that he desired to do by asking- these ques- 
tions is to cover up the truth and darken your spirit- 
ual eye. 

"But is there any Bible authority for the practice? 
The Lord's Supper was given to the family of God, 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 94 

and all are commanded to partake of it. 'And as 
they were eating-, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and brake it, and g-ave it to the disciples, and said, 
Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, 
and g-ave thanks, and g-ave it to them, saying-, 
Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new 
testament, which is shed for many for the remis- 
sion of sins.' (Matt. 26:26-28.) God has but one 
family. 'Of whom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named.' (Kph. 3:15.) All God's children 
are in his family. 'But now hath God set the mem- 
bers every one of them in the body, as it hath 
pleased him.' (ICor. 12:18.) Each Christian is 
entitled to eat at the Lord's table because of the 
fact that he belong-s to the family of God, and the 
Lord instituted it for his children and commanded 
all of them to partake of it. 'And he took the cup, 
and g-ave thanks, and g-ave it to them, saying-, 
Drink ye all of it.' (Matt. 26:27.) If women are 
Christians and belong- to God's family, which Mr. 
Nackles will admit is true, then they are entitled 
to the communion. If they are not Christians, then 
Mr. Nackles errs in giving- it to them. 

"But are there any women in the church, the 
family of God? Baptism puts one into Christ. 
'For as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ.' (Gal. 3:27.) 'Know 
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?' (Rom. 
6:3.) When one is in Christ, he is a 'new creature,' 
and, therefore, a Christian. 'If any man be in Christ, 
Ik is a new creature: old things are passed away; 



'J5 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

behold, all thing-sare become new/ (2 Cor. 5: 17.) 
'Both men and women" were baptized; therefore 
both are in Christ. (Acts 8:12.1 The}' are new 
creatures in Christ; hence both men and women be- 
long- to the family of God. 'God is no respecter of 
persons/ (Acts 10:34.) Therefore he could not 
debar a part of his children from his table by leav- 
ing- out the women. The Lord is not as selfish with 
his children as the Methodists are with theirs. 
They will not g-ive their children the Lord's Supper. 
"But there is another way of getting" at the 
truth on this proposition. Paul, in his letter to the 
church at Corinth, said: 'The cup of blessing- which 
we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of 
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a com- 
munion of the body of Christ? Seeing- that we. who 
are many, are one bread, one body; for we are all par- 
takers of the one bread.' flCor. 10:16.17, R. V.) 
'The cup of blessing-, for which we bless God. — is 
it not a participation of the blood of the Anointed 
one? The loaf which we break, — is it a not partici- 
pation of the bodv of the Anointed one? Bee use 
there is one loaf. we. the man v. are one bodv: for 
we all partake of the one loaf.' (1 Cor. 10:16.17. 
Emphatic Diag-lott. ) 'The cup of blessing- which we 
bless, is it not a partaking- of the blood of Christ? 
The bread which we break, is it not a partaking- of the 
bod}' of Christ? Because we, the many, are one bread, 
one body; for we all share in that one bread.' (1 Cor. 
10:16,17, American Bible Union.; There are other 
translations that could be quoted on this passage, 
but these three are sufficient to show that Paul in- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. % 

eluded himself and the women with the whole 
church in the expression, 'we are all partakers of 
the one bread.' 

"But were there any women in the church at 
Corinth? If so, they are included in the phrase, 
'we are all partakers of the one bread.' Paul, in 
writing- to the church at Corinth, said: 'As in all 
the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence 
in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them 
to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also 
saith the law. And if they would learn anything-, 
let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is 
shameful for a woman to speak in the church.' 
(1 Cor. 14:33-35, R. V. ) Wilson, in the Emphatic 
Diag-lott, renders this passag-e 1 hus: 'As in all the 
congregations of the saints, let your wives be silent 
in the assemblies; for it has not been permitted to 
them to speak, but let them be submissive; even 
as the law also says; and if they wish to learn any- 
thing-, let them ask their own husbands at home; 
for it is an indecent thing- for a woman to speak in 
the assembly.' The Baptist translation renders the 
passag-e thus: 'As in all churches of the saints. Let 
your women keep silence in the churches; for it is 
not permitted to them to speak, but they are to be in 
subjection, as the law also says. And if they wish 
to learn anything-, let them ask their own husbands 
at home; for it is a shame for a woman to speak in 
the church.' According- to these three translations, 
there were women in the church at Corinth, and 
some of them 'wives.' Hence, when Paul said to 
this congreg-ation, 'We are all partakers of this one 



g 7 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

bread,' he furnishes us a Bible example of women 
taking- the communion. 

"The third question is as easily answered as the 
former two. Christ, on the nig-ht in which he was 
betrayed, instituted the Lord's Supper. On that 
occasion he took bread, and when he had given 
thanks, he broke it, and g-ave to his disciples, say- 
ing-: 'This is my body, which is for you: this do in 
remembrance of me.' He also took the cup and 
said: 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood: 
this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of 
me.' (lCor. 11:23-26, R. V.) This shows that 
the Lord's Supper is to be observed till Christ's 
second coming - . But when is it to be observed? 
We find the early disciples at Jerusalem breaking- 
bread. 'And the} 7 continued steadfastly in the 
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking- 
of bread, and in prayers.' (Acts 2:42.) At Troas 
we find the disciples assembled on 'the first day of 
the week' to 'break bread.' (Acts 20:7.) This 
designates the time when the disciples observed 
this institution. They did not meet upon the first 
day of 'a' week, but the first day of 'the' week. 
This implies the first day of every week. Under 
the old law the command to the Jews to keep the 
Sabbath da\ T holy meant every Sabbath day. Then 
why should not the expression, 'the first day of the 
week,' mean every first daj T ? Will Mr. Nackles 
undertake the task of showing- why it should not 
have such a meaning-? 

"In Acts 2:42 the breaking- of bread is associated 
with the fellowship and other items of worship. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 98 

which implies that they are connected in the wor- 
ship of the saints. These items of worship can no 
more be severed and a part left out of the worship 
of the saints than can faith and repentance be sev- 
ered and one left out of the obedience of the sinner. 
But when should we participate in the fellowship? 
'Upon the first day of the week let each one lay by 
him in store, as he may prosper, that no collec- 
tions be made when I come. 1 (1 Cor. 16:2, R. V.) 
'Every first day of the week, let each of you lay 
something- by itself, depositing- as he may be pros- 
pered, so that when I come collections may not then 
be made.' ( 1 Cor. 16:2, Emphatic Diag-lott.) 'On 
each first day of the week, let every one of you lay 
by him in store, according- as he is prospered, that 
there may be no collections when I come.' (ICor. 
16:2, American Bible Union. ) 

"As the breaking- of bread and the contribution 
are items of worship and connected with other 
items of worship at Jerusalem, and since the con- 
tribution should be made 'every first dav of the 
week,' 'on each first day of the week,' I reach the con- 
clusion that 'the apostles' teaching-, the breaking- 
of bread and the pravers,' are also included in the 
command. Why should they be left out? Will Mr. 
Nackles g'ive a reason why one of these items of 
worship should be observed 'on each first day of the 
week' and the others not? The Methodists them- 
selves meet each first dav of the week, teach, pray, 
and contribute as set forth in Acts 2:42. and I see 
no reason why they should 1 rive oil" th ■; communion, 
which is one of the items of worship as set forth in 



( ' , » AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

the same passage. 

"We find that the earliest and best history cor- 
responds with the Bible idea as set forth above. 
William Palmer, A.M., of Worcester College, Ox- 
ford, as quoted by W. P. Richardson in "Adventism 
Against Itself." page 37, testifies thus: 'It was cus- 
tomary for all Christians to receive the sacrament 
of the eucharist every Sunday.' 'All Christians' 
embraces Christian women as well as 'every Sun- 
day' embraces every Lord's day. This historian 
refers to the testimony" of Justin Martyr. 'After 
this we always continually remind each other of 
these things, and the rich assist the poor, and we 
are continually with each other. In all our offer- 
ings we bless the Creator of all things through his 
Son, Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Spirit. 
And on the day called Sunday all who dwell in the 
citv or the country assemble in one place, and the 
memorials of the apostles and the writings of the 
prophets are read as the time permits. Then when 
. the reader ceases the president in a discourse ex- 
horts and admonishes to the imitation of these ex- 
cellent precepts. We then all rise together and 
send up prayers, and, as we have said, when the 
prayers cease, bread is offered and wine." Here 
both men and women and every Lord's day are in- 
cluded. 

"Dr. Neander says (as quoted by Milligan in 
'Scheme of Redemtion';: 'As we have already re- 
marked, the celebration of the Lord's Supper was 
still held to constitute an essential part of divine 
worship on every Sundav, as appears from Justin 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 100 

Martyr (A.D. 150), and the whole church partook 
of the communion after they had joined in the Amen 
of the preceding- prayer. The deacons carried the 
bread and wine to every one present in order. It 
was held to be necessary that all the Christians in 
the place should, participating- in this communion, 
maintain their union with the Lord and with his 
church, and hence the deacons carried a portion of 
the consecrated bread and wine to strangers, to the 
sick, to prisoners, and to all who were prevented 
from being- present at the assembly.' ('History of 
Christ, Religion, and Church/ Vol. I., pag-e 332.) 

" 'The first day of the week, which was the ordi- 
nary and stated time for the public assemblies of 
Christians, was, in consequence of a peculiar law 
enacted by Constantine, observed with greater so- 
lemnity than it had formerly been.' (Mosheim, 
Vol. I., pag-e 120.) 

"'All Christians were unanimous in setting- 
apart the first day of the week, on which the tri- 
umphant Savior arose from the dead, for the sol- 
emn celebration of public worship. This pious 
custom which was derived from the church at Je- 
rusalem was founded upon the express appointment 
of the apostles.' (Mosheim by Maclaine, Vol. I., 
pag-e 45.) 

* 'These quotations show that all Christians, both 
men and women, participated in the celebration of 
the Lord's Supper on each first day of the week. 

"Since Mr. Wesley is the founder of the Meth- 
odist Church, I suppose Mr. Nackles would like to 
hear him on this subject. He is dead, but. 



101 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

like Abel of old, 'yet speaketh.' John Wesley (as 
quoted by D. R. Dung-an in 'Sabbath or Lord's 
Day? Which?' page 64), in a letter to America, 
L784, said: 'I, also, advise the elders to administer 
the supper of the Lord on every Lord's day.' 

kk The above history is all plain and agrees with 
the Bible on the points under consideration. Other 
history could be quoted on this subject, but this is 
sufficient. 

"I suppose Mr. Nackles will allow me the same 
liberty he took, so I will get you to ask him three 
questions for me. But before asking- these ques- 
tions, I will quote some scripture preparatorv to 
the first query. 

44 'And Jesus came and spake to them, saying - : 
All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. 
Go therefore, and disciple all the the nations, im- 
mersing* them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching- them to 
observe all things whatever I have commanded vou. 
And behold. I am with vou alway, unto the end 
of the world.' (Matt. 28:18-20.) 

" 'Now when they heard this, they were pierced to 
the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apos- 
tles: Men, brethren, what shall we do? And Peter 
said to them: Repent, and be each of } r ou immersed, 
upon the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the g-ift of the Holy Spirit/ 
/Acts 2:37-38.) 

"'But when thev believed Philip preaching- giad 
tiding-s concerning- the king-dom of God and the 
mm" of Jesus Christ, thev were immersed, both 



AW INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 102 

men and women. And Simon also himself believed ; 
and having- been immersed, he continued with 
Philip, and wondered, beholding* the miracles and 
si g-ns which were wrought.' (Acts 8:12,13. ) 

" 'Philip opened his mouth, and beginning- from 
this Scripture, preached to him the g-lad tiding-s 
of Jesus. And as they went along the way, they 
came to a certain water. And the eunuch said: 
See, here is water; what hinders that I should be im- 
mersed? And Philip said: If thou belie vest with all 
thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and 
said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
And he commanded that the chariot should stop. 
And they went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch; and he immersed him. And when 
they came up out of the water, the Spirit of 
the Lord caug-ht away Philip; and the eunuch saw 
him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing-." 
(Acts 8:35-39.) 

"The above quotations are made from' the 'Amer- 
ican Bible Union.' I now quote from the 'Em- 
phatic Diagiott:' 

'"All authority has been imparted tome, in 
heaven and on earth. Go, disciple all the nations, 
immersing- them into the name of the Father, and 
of the Son,, and of the Holy Spirit; teaching- them 
to observe all thing-s which I have enjoined upon 
you; and, behold, I am with you all the days, till 
the consummation of the ag-e.' 

" 'Having- heard this, they were pierced to the 
heart, and said to Peter and the other apostles, 
Brethren! what shall we do?' And Peter said to 



103 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

them; Reform, and let each of jou be immersed in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of 
3 r our sins; and you will receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit.' 

" 'But when they believed Philip announcing 
glad tidings concerning- the king-dom of God, and 
the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both 
men and women. And Simon himself also believed; 
and having- been immersed, he was constantly at- 
tending- to Philip; and beholding- the signs and 
great miracles which were performed, he was 
astonished.' 

" 'Philip opening- his mouth, and beginning- from 
this scripture, announced the g-lad tiding-s of Jesus 
to him. And as they were g-oing- on the road, they 
came to a certain water; and the eunuch said, Be- 
hold, water! what hinders my being- immersed? 
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both 
went down into the water, both Philip and the eu- 
nuch, and he immersed him. And when they came 
up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord seized 
Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he 
went his way rejoicing-.' 

"I could quote another translation which gives 
immersion in these passages, but these will suffice 
for the present purpose. 

"1. I have given two translations which are not 
called in question by the best scholars, and both of 
these translations give 'immersing' and 'immersed' 
in the above quotations. Will Mr. Nackles produce 
one translation which gives 'sprinkling' or 'pour- 
ing' in these scriptures? 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 104 

"2. If the Bible does not authorize women to par- 
take of the communion, then why does the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, give it to them, and 
how can Mr. Nackles prove all he believes or prac- 
tices by the Bible? 

"3. Can Mr. Nackles produce one scriptural rea- 
son why the Methodists meet on the first day of 
each week, teach, pray, and contribute as author- 
ized in Acts 2:42, and leave off the 'breaking- of 
bread,' which is authorized in the same passage? 

"You may use this as you see fit. May the Lord 
continue his blessings upon you, is the prayer of 
your friend and brother in Christ, 

"C. E. W. Dorris." 

I have now accommodated you by complying 1 with 
your request and by answering- your questions. 
Will you please accommodate me by answering 
these questions: 

1. Will you produce the scripture which shows 
the time when, and the place where, Christ or the 
apostles authorized or practiced infant baptism? 

2. Does the narrow road leading- to heaven lead 
throug-h the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
or is said church in the narrow road? 

This reply is somewhat lengthy, but much of it 
is correcting your misrepresentations; hence attrib- 
ute the length of the article to yourself. Have you 
put that one thousand dollars in bank? 
Your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Term., April 24, 1907. — Dear Miss 
Yount: Yours of March 29 received. If you can- 
not understand my reasons for not more fully an- 
swering- your letter of February 7, it does not seem 
necessary to make any further explanation. It is a 
waste of time to keep going - over the same old 
things in the same old way. 

As to the one thousand dollars, I have never of- 
fered any reward for proof of Bible doctrines. 
Such offers are foolish. No one ever tries to collect 
them; no one ever expects to pay them. I said it 
would be safe for me to offer one thousand dollars 
for proof that immersion is the only mode of bap- 
tism. That would be perfectly safe as long- as I 
am the judg-e of the argument. If some immer- 
sionist should be the judg-e, then it would not be 
safe. No court would hold what I said as an offer. 
It was simply a statement. 

The ease with which you silenced the presiding 
elder, the bishop, and the pastor is remarkable in- 
deed. But, somehow, I do not feel seriously alarmed. 

You have a g-ood deal to say about my admission 
that "infant baptism is not directly authorized by 
the Scriptures." Dr. Feist, of Nashville, has 
been convicted of murder in the first degree 
and denied a new trial without a single item of di- 
rect evidence. No doctrine is directly authorized 
by the Scriptures unless it can be proven by com- 
mandment or example. If it takes direct authority 
to establish a doctrine, then the church of Christ 



AND INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 106 

ought to quit the practice of immersion and giving 
communion to the women. Your friend, a copy of 
whose letter you inclose, does not attempt to prove 
these things by direct authority. You seem to for- 
get that the word "directly" means anything. 
When you quote me as saying "the Scriptures do 
not authorize infant baptism," you give an entirely 
different meaning to the sentence. To say that the 
guilt of Dr. Feist is not proven is entirely different 
from saying that the guilt of Dr. Feist is not di- 
rectly proven. . . . 

Regarding "the fool erring in the way," I quote 
from your letter: "The fact that I saw the true 
way as laid down in the New Testament and walked 
therein is evidence that I am not the fool of 
which you speak." Let us look at some other facts 
and see what they prove. You grew up in a home 
where they always had a Bible. You read that 
Bible. You went to school, became a teacher and 
a woman of more than "average intellect." Until 
the fall of 1905 you had not learned the true way of 
life, and was so prejudiced against those who taught 
the true way that you would not attend their meet- 
ings. What do these facts prove? 

You say: "I dropped the name 'Methodist 1 because 
I could not find it in the Bible." The name 
"Yount" is not in the Bible. Why did you not drop 
that unscriptural name while you were dropping 
names? The name "church of Christ" is not in 
the Bible. Why did you enter a church which has 
not a Bible name? 

I will write an answer to Mr. Dorris' letter and 



107 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

send it to you in a few days. Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nackxes. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., May 7, 1907.— Dear Miss 
Yount: Mr. Dorris accuses me of attempting- to 
darken counsel by demanding- proof of Bible doc- 
trines by commandments and examples, and put- 
ting- the command for the example and the example 
for the command. Then he says: "There are four 
ways to g-et Bible authority for faith in, and the 
practice of, a thing- — viz., command, example, pre- 
cept, and necessary inference. If Mr. Nackles had 
desired nothing but the truth as revealed in the 
Bible, he would have embraced these four ways in 
his questions instead of limiting- them to commands 
and examples." 

In your letter to Brother Lovell, written from 
Nashville, July 16, 1906, and published in the Gos- 
pel Advocate of January 3, 1907, you say: "I have 
a friend who calls the practice of infant baptism, 
sprinkling-, and baptism because of the remission 
of sins in question, and asks me to g-ive him one 
scripture for each practice where Christ authorized 
them and one example of each where the apostles 
practiced them, and says that he will g-ive me ten 
dollars in g-old for each example." This very 
clearly states that the rewards were offered only 
for the examples. If Mr. Dorris had desired noth- 
ing but the truth as revealed in the Bible, and had 
not feared that some one would collect the thirty 
dollars in gold, he would have embraced all the 
four methods of getting Bible authority in his offer. 



109 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Instead of that, he confined it to examples. Now 
who first sought to be unfair and darken counsel 
by the way he states his propositions? 

I accept the four ways of getting- Bible authority 
as stated by Mr. Dorris. There may also be other 
ways, but it is not necessary to discuss them at 
this time. As a rule, the thing's that are taught 
by plain commands, precepts, and examples, in the 
New Testament, have not been questioned by those 
who believe the Bible to be the word of God. But 
most of the doctrines and practices taught by in- 
ference have been much disputed. A great deal 
depends on the word "necessar3^' , What one 
church accepts as a "necessary inference," another 
does not. Many of those who oppose Methodist 
doctrines want us to prove what we believe and 
practice by commands and examples, but let them 
prove some things they believe and practice in some 
other waj'. It is impossible to prove anything to 
people who make themselves the sole judges of the 
evidence. 

Mr. Dorris thinks that because I believe in and 
practice immersion and giving communion to 
women, that is good evidence in their favor; but he 
does not seem to think that my failure to believe 
in and practice communion every Lord's day is any 
sort of evidence against the practice. He counts 
John Wesley good authority when Wesley is on his 
side of the question. But Wesle} T taught many 
things which Mr. Dorris does not believe. Was 
Wesley good authority on those subjects? 

You have been arguing with me that what you 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 110 

do is no excuse for what I do, and that I must prove 
my doctrine whether vou can prove yours or not. 
So I make the same requirement of Mr. Dorris. If 
I believe and practice these things without proof, 
that does not excuse him. The Methodists do not 
"baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit." They baptize according to Christ's 
command — "in the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19.) 
, Mr. Dorris introduces Paul and John Wesley to 
prove immersion by Rom. 6:4. Paul does not say 
a word about water or immersion. The word 
"buried" is never used to mean the same as "im- 
mersed." Wesley taught several thing-s that I do 
not believe. I am strictly an independent thinker. 

Mr. Dorris writes: "The Lord's Supper was given 
to the family of God and all commanded to partake 
of it." (Matt. 26:26-28.) Christ did not say a 
word about "the family of God" in the reference 
given. "The family of God" is not mentioned in 
connection with the communion. 

Regarding- the duty of taking communion every 
Lord's da}^, there is only one paragraph in the 
Bible intimating anything on that subject. (Acts 
20:7-12.) This paragraph was written to give an 
account of Paul's preaching and the death of the 
young man who fell from the third loft, and his 
restoration to life. Breaking bread is only men- 
tioned incidentally. It was midnight when the 
young man fell. Paul went down and restored him 
to life. "When he therefore was come up again, 
and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked along 



Ill AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

while, even till break of day, so he departed." 
(Acts 20:11.) They either had communion twice 
at that meeting - — once on Sunday and once on Mon- 
day — or they had it only on Monday morning - . The 
fact that they met on the Lord's day to "break 
bread" is no evidence that they met every Lord's 
day for that purpose. The reason why "the first 
day of the week" does not mean "every first day of 
the week" is almost too plain for arg-ument. It is 
simply because the word "every" is not in Acts 20: 
7. The command to keep the Sabbath day holy is 
referred to. God rested on the seventh day, but the 
day was not kept by his followers until he com- 
manded it. The point is mentioned that the com- 
munion and contribution are a part of the worship 
of believers and cannot any more be dispensed with 
than prayer and teaching - . If that is true, why 
does not the church of Christ take a contribution 
and administer the communion every time they 
meet? When they have week-day meetings, they 
do not meet for worship, according - to that argu- 
ment. 

I will now answer Mr. Dorris' three questions: 
1. There are only two standard translations of 
the Bible in the Eng-lish lang-uage— the Authorized 
and Revised Versions. The word "immerse," nor 
any word that means exactly the same, is not in 
either of them. They are the result of years of 
labor by a number of the best scholars of the ages 
in which the work was done. The translations 
which give "immerse" for "baptize" are not ac- 
cepted by a majority of the best scholars. The 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 112 

word "baptism" has no sort of reference to a mode. 
It is the name of the ordinance. It is an error to 
render the word to sprinkle, pour, wash, immerse, 
plunge, or dip. Webster says: "Baptism is the ap- 
plication of water to a person as a relig-ious rite or 
ceremony." 

2. By inference the Bible does authorize women 
to take the communion. It is not authorized by 
such proof as you demand for infant baptism. 

3. Acts 2:42 neither mentions the communion nor 
the Lord's day. We do not know whether "break- 
ing- of bread" has reference to the communion or 
their common meals. Scripture silence from your 
standpoint is sufficient authority for not doing- a 
thing-. You are, doubtless, familiar with that 
motto of many of your brethren: "Where the Bible 
speaks, we speak; where it is silent, we are silent." 

Then you close your letter by asking- two ques- 
tions. The first is the repeated request for New 
Testament authority for infant baptism. Here 
it is: 

1. The Jewish church is a type of the Christian 
church. The Jewish church had a form by which 
infants were recog-nized as members. Then we in- 
fer that the Christian church must have a form for 
the recognition of infant members. Paul's letter 
to the Hebrews seems to have been written for the 
special purpose of showing- that the Jewish church 
represents the Christian church. "God, who at 
sundry times and in divers manners spake in times 
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
latter davs spoken unto us bv his Son. ' (Heb. 1 :1.2.) 



113 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

"For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the fig-uresof the true; 
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the pres- 
ence of God for us." (Feb.- 9:24.) Chapter 10 
speaks of the "law having a shadow of good things 
to come." Christ, who is our example, was made 
a member of the Jewish church at eight days old. 
(Luke 2:21.) The Jewish church had two sacra- 
ments — circumcision and the passover. The Chris- 
tian church has two sacraments — baptism and the 
communion. The church of Christ recognizes that 
the Jewish church is a type of the Christian church. 
In the Gospel Advocate of May 2, on page 281, in 
the first column, Mr. D. Lipscomb says: "Then the 
Jewish dispensation was a type of the Christian. 
The things done were for example, and they were 
written down for our admonition and warning." 
If the Jewish dispensation was a type of the Chris- 
tian, what did circumcision typify? 

2. In the days of Christ infants were brought to 
him. (Luke 18:15-17.) Christ's conduct and lan- 
guage on that occasion show that he indorses some 
form by which children are recognized as members 
of his kingdom. The persons' who brought those 
children to Christ showed that they recognized the 
infants as members of the kingdom. 

3. The great commission says: "Go ye therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." (Matt. 28:19.) There has never been a 
nation without children. 

4. The households of Cornelius, Lydia, and the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 114 

jailer were baptized. It is reasonable to suppose 
that there were children in all these households. 

We may, therefore, infer that Christ indorsed 
some form of recognizing- infants as members of his 
king-dom; that he included children in the great 
commission to g-o and teach and baptize all nations; 
and that the apostles practiced infant baptism when 
thev baptized the households of Cornelius, Lvdia, 
and the jailer. 

One passage is often quoted against infant bap- 
tism: "He that believeth ;md is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
(Mark 16:16. ) Children cannot believe, therefore 
they should not be baptized. Apply the same rea- 
soning- to the latter part of the verse: Children can- 
not believe, therefore they shall be damned. If all 
must believe in order to baptism, then all must be- 
lieve in order to salvation. 

All this argument is by inference. As to wheth- 
er the inferences ;irr necessary is a matter of opin- 
ion. To me they seem necessary. Likely, to you 
and Mr. Dorris they will not seem necessary. In 
my judgment of evidence. I have offered as g-ood 
authority for infant baptism as Mr. Dorris has 
shown for immersion, women taking- communion, 
or the duty of taking- communion every Lord's day. 
All his arg-ument, like mine, is by inference. No 
one has yet accepted my offer. I will repeat the 
offer and make it strong-er. If any one will show 
a Bible command, example, or precept for immer- 
sion, women taking- communion, or the duty of tak- 
ing communion everv Lord's dav. confining himself 



115 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

strictly to the Authorized and Revised Versions of 
the Bible, then I will show the same kind of proof 
for infant baptism. 

I do not exactly understand what you mean by 
your second question. It is too general. If you 
will specify, I will try to answer. 

Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nackxes. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., May 28, 1907.— Mr. Georg-e 
W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: Yours 
of April 24 and May 7 received. Both are in an- 
swer to mine of March 29. I waited for the last be- 
fore replying- to the first, so I could have your full 
reply before me. I reply to both in one. 

You are mistaken when you think no one expects 
to pay a promised sum for a scripture reference or 
to collect one. When I made my ten-dollar offer 
for a scripture that shows the time when,* and the 
place where, Christ or the apostles authorized or 
practiced infant baptism, I meant to pay it when 
said scripture was introduced. I still mean to pay 
it to the person introducing- such scripture. Not 
only did I mean to pay what I promised, but I 
meant to collect what would be justly due me by 
the promise of others. If you do not believe I 
mean what I say, you give me a chance at either 
proposition. I prefer a chance at both. I would 
like to convince you that there is at least one honest 
person who proposes to meet her duties and obliga- 
tions by paying- what she promises, whether you do 
or not. It seems to me that if I were you, I would 
regret having- acknowledged that I did not mean to 
meet my obligations by paying- what I promised. 
Since this is true, it is wholly unnecessary for you 
to offer rewards or make promises of any shape or 
form, neither is it necessary for you to write on the 
subject. According to your statement, you would 
not pay them, and no one would believe that you 



117 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

would if you should promise to do so. I was satis- 
fied the one thousand dollars would not be put in 
bank, payable to me, when I introduce the writings 
of pedobaptists showing that the Greek word 
"baptidzo" means to immerse, and that this was the 
practice of the apostles and first Christians; but I 
did not think you would try to slip around the force 
of the argument by acknowledging- that } t ou would 
not pay it, provided you promised to do so. Since 
you make such an acknowledgment, it is useless 
for me to press the matter further. 

Relative to your admission that "infant baptism 
is not directly authorized by the Scriptures," it is 
wholly unnecessar} T for you to argue the question 
further from this point of view. You have given 
up the victory on this side. I will not treat you as 
you seem to think Dr. Feist has been treated. I 
will gladly give you a new hearing". I will hear 
vou from the other side. Since you admit that "in- 
fant baptism is not directl} 7 authorized by the Scrip- 
tures," will you produce the scripture which shows 
the time when, and the place where, Christ or the 
apostles indirectly authorized it? This is fair. 

Paul said: "The churches of Christ salute you." 
(Rom. 16:16.; This reads like the church of Christ 
is in the Bible. This could not have been the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, from the fact 
that it was set up in Louisville, Ky., "May, 1845," 
hundreds of years after Paul wrote. 

This brings me to your second letter. My friend 
has never darkened counsel by putting the com- 
mand for the example and the example for the com- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 118 

mand. He has been willing- to accept either all 
throug-h this discussion. Neither my friend nor I 
have limited any one to example in this discussion. 
The word "authorized" includes command, exam- 
ple, precept, and necessarj- inference. Hence the 
field in which to find infant baptism has been as 
broad as the Bible all throug-h this discussion. 

If you believe the Bible to be the word of God, 
you are mistaken when you say, "As a rule, the 
thing-s that are taug-ht by plain commandments, 
precepts, and examples in the New Testament have 
not been called in question by those who believe the 
Bible to be the word of God," from the fact that 
you have not only called in question one plain ex- 
ample of immersion, but several. Paul included 
himself with the Romans when he said: "We are 
buried with him by baptism." (Rom. 6:4.) Not 
only do you call in question these examples of im- 
mersion, but you admit in the above quotation that 
infant baptism and sprinkling- are not authorized 
in the Bible by "plain commandments, precepts, 
and examples," from the fact they are "called in 
question by those who believe the Bible to be the 
word of God." Hence we cannot hope to g-et any 
authority from you for either practice, except it be 
by necessary inference; and I am inclined to think 
you will not be able to g-ive this, and especially on 
sprinkling-, since you tell us in your tract that "it 
is a mistake to assert that affusion can be proven." 
Hence you need not undertake to prove affusion in 
any way. 

The practice of Mr. Wesley and yourself was in- 



119 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

troduced by my friend to show how you contradict 
yourself and } T our doctrine, and to show that the 
Methodists agree with him on the points under dis- 
cussion. Just as long- as you and Mr. Wesley agree 
with the Bible, my friend agrees with you; but 
when you and Mr. Wesley leave the Bible, then my 
friend leaves you. I have known for some time 
that you are "strictly an independent thinker;" but 
the trouble at this point is, the most of your think- 
ing- is "independent" of the Bible and reason. 

If Christ did not give the Lord's Supper to the 
family of God when he instituted it, then to whom 
did he give it? Did he g-ive it to the family of the 
evil one? 

In reg-ard to your three questions propounded to 
mj T friend and answered by him, I am g-lad to see 
you coming- closer to the Lord by accepting- the 
truth. My theological class is still improving, and 
I think it will be but a short time until the last 
student will graduate, confess his faith in Christ, 
and be baptized for the remission of sins. I men- 
tion this to encourage you in your studies. I think 
you are learning as rapidhr as could be expected of 
one who was as dull in his studies as you were on 
entering the class. As to immersion, women tak- 
ing the Lord's Supper, and communing every Lord's 
day, you accept the truth regarding the former two 
and almost accept it as to the latter. Do you ask 
wherein you accept the truth relative to the former 
two? I answer as follows: In your tract, and in 
vour "conclusion," page 23, you introduce John the 
Baptist as one who practiced immersion, Christ and 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 120 

the eunuch as examples of immersion. In jour 
last letter you say: "By reference the Bible does 
authorize women to take the communion." Thus 
you admit your defeat in the first and second ques- 
tions. You almost accept my friend's reply to the 
third question by saying*: "Regarding- the duty of 
taking* communion every Lord's day, there is only 
one paragraph in the Bible intimating- anything- on 
that subject." One passag-e is enoug-h. Your rea- 
soning- why the words "the first day of the week" 
do not embrace every first day is not g-ood, from the 
fact that the same logic will prevent the expression, 
"keep the Sabbath day holy," from embracing- 
every Sabbath day. If "the first day of the week" 
does not include every first day of the week because 
the word "every" is not in Acts 20:7, then how can 
you make the expression, "keep the Sabbath day 
holy," include every Sabbath day, since the word 
"every" is not found in the command? Please ex- 
plain this, and then tell us why "the first day of 
the week" does not include every first day of the 
week? 

I remind you of the fact that you did not answer 
my friend's three questions. You answered the 
second by admitting- that there is Bible authority 
for giving- the communion to women. The third 
you admit you cannot answer when you say that 
you do not know whether "breaking- of bread" re- 
fers to the "communion or common meal." If in 
this you are correct, you have no rigiit to arg-ue that 
it does or does not refer to the communion. Here 
you debar yourself from either affirming" or denying". 



121 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

As to my friend's first question, he introduced two 
translations which gives the words, "immersing - " 
and "immersed" in a number of passages of scrip- 
ture, and then asks: "Will Mr. Nackles produce 
one translation which gives 'sprinkling-' or 'pour- 
ing' in these scriptures?" This you ig-nore. Can 
you produce such a translation? If so, please in- 
troduce it. The scholarship of all denominations 
agrees with the translations presented by my friend 
relative to immersion. The scholars among the 
Methodists do. I can introduce some of them. 
Would you like to see some of their evidence? 

Relative to answering my two questions, you fail 
again. You make an attempt to answer the first, 
but the second you do not try. "It is too general." 

In your attempt to answer my first, you number 
your arguments and make four. I answer the first 
and second in one. 

(1,2) If infants should be baptized because "the 
Jewish church" had a "form by which infants were 
recognized as members," and if Christ and those 
who brought their children to him recognized them 
as members of the kingdom, then why do you not 
recognize them as members? In one of your letters 
you said: "Infants are not recognized as mem- 
bers of the Methodist Church. They are not on 
the church rolls nor counted when we make re- 
ports of our membership. We baptize infants in 
recognition of the fact that by virtue of the atone- 
ment they are members of the spiritual church, or 
the body of Christ. We do not recog-nize them as 
members of the congregation or visible church." 



AND INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 122 

Here you can turn on some light if you have any 
oil in your lamp. If baptism is a door into the 
church, and if these children were already members 
and so recognized by their parents and Christ, then 
how did baptism put them in? But I do not un- 
derstand how you can baptize the girl babies on the 
strength of the Jewish rite, from the fact that 
the mark of circumcision did not apply to them. 
Please explain this. 

(3) In the commission Christ limited baptism to 
believing penitents. If "teaching all nations," in 
Matt. 28:19, includes infants, then preaching "the 
gospel to every creature" in Mark 16:15 includes 
hogs, sheep, cattle, and horses, because they are as 
much a part of "every creature" as infants are a 
part of "all nations." The same authority and 
reason that will baptize infants will also baptize 
hogs and sheep. 

(4) If it was "reasonable to suppose" that there 
were "children in all these households," would it 
be "reasonable to suppose" that they had infants 
and that the infants were baptized, since the Bible 
shows that none of the households were baptized 
except believers? 

As to my second question being "too general," I 
will explain and see if you can answer it. But I am 
inclined to think that you understand the question 
and that this is the reason you fail to answer it. 
Here is the question explained: There are two 
roads for responsible beings to travel — the broad 
and the narrow. "Enter ye in at the strait gate: 
for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that lead- 



123 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

eth to destruction, and many there be which go in 
thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is 
the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be 
that find it." (Matt. 7:13,14.) One road leads to 
heaven and the other to hell. If the narrow road 
is not in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
then said church is in the broad road. If the nar- 
row road leads through the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, then, for a responsible person to get 
to heaven, he must go through said church. This 
being true, and since baptism is the door into the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, therefore one 
must be baptized to reach heaven. I trust this is 
plain enough and that you will answer my question. 
Does the narrow road leading to heaven lead through 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South? 

I have answered both of your letters. It seems 
that if we learn anything about the origin and his- 
tory of infant baptism, I will have to furnish the 
evidence. It did not originate in the identity of the 
Jewish and Christian churches; not in Jewish cir- 
cumcision; not in Jewish proselyte baptism; not in 
the teaching of John the Baptist, Christ, or the 
apostles; it originated in the absurd dogma of in- 
fantile depravity, or the inherited guilt of Adam's 
sin, and the practice' cannot be traced farther back 
than about the close of the second century. There- 
fore it did not originate in the days of Christ and 
the apostles nor have their sanction. It originated 
with men, and not God. This is why you and your 
brethren have failed to produce Bible authority for 
the practice. Here are three facts: 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 124 

1. Infantile depravity, or the guilt of original sin, 
was the foundation of infant baptism. "But when, 
now, on the one hand, the doctrine of the corrup- 
tion and g-uilt cleaving- to human nature in conse- 
quence of the first transgression, was reduced to a 
more precise and systematic form, and, on the other, 
from the want of duly distinguishing- between what 
is outward and what is inward baptism (the bap- 
tism by water and baptism by the Spirit), the error 
became more firmly established that without ex- 
ternal baptism no one could be delivered from that 
inherent guilt, could be saved from the everlasting 
punishment that threatened him, or raised to eter- 
nal life; and when the notion of magical influence 
or chnrm connected with the sacraments continu- 
ally gained ground, the theory was finally evolved 
of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism." 
(Neander, Vol. I., page 313.) This shows when 
and how infant baptism was finally evolved. In- 
fantile depravity, or the guilt of original sin, was 
the foundation of it. -The people took up the idea 
that infants inherited the guilt of Adam's sin; and 
knowing that baptism is for the remission of sins, 
and desiring the salvation of the infant, and believ- 
ing that unless the guilt of Adam's sin was washed 
away in baptism, infants dying in infancy were 
lost, the fathers introduced infant baptism. This 
seems to have been the idea of John Wesley when 
he said: 4 'If infants are guilty of original sin, then 
they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the 
ordinarj' way, they cannot be saved, unless this 
be washed away by baptism. It has # been already 



125 AN INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCE. 

proved, that this original stain cleaves to every 
child of man; and that hereby they are children of 
wrath, and liable to eternal damnation. It is true, 
the Second Adam has found a remedy for the dis- 
ease which came upon all by the offense of the first. 
But the benefit of this is to be received throug-h 
the means which he hath appointed; through bap- 
tism in particular, which is the ordinary means he 
hath appointed for that purpose; and to which God 
hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself." 
("Doctrinal Tracts," page 251.) 

2. Irenaeus is the first church teacher in which 
we find any allusion to infant baptism. Irenaeus 
wrote about the year 190, and is quoted by Neander 
(Vol. I., page 311). Neander says: "Irenaeus is the 
first church teacher in whom we find any allusion 
to infant baptism." 

3. Irenaeus wrote about the year 190 A.D., and 
therefore infant baptism cannot be traced farther 
back than said date. 

You will please pardon me for going outside of 
the Bible to find the origin and history of infant 
baptism. I had it to do, because it cannot be found 
in the Bible. We have to go outside of the Bible 
to find things not in the Bible. 

Your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., June 24, 1907.— Dear Miss 
Yount: Your last received. Our discussion is now 
almost confined to methods of arg-ument. I knew it 
would come to this point. You, with the majority 
of people, have not learned that every church can 
plainly prove all they believe and practice by the 
Bible, if you will accept the methods of arg-ument 
by which they prove it. Another thing- you have 
not learned, or refuse to accep 1 : No church can 
prove all they believe by such proof as you demand 
for what you do not believe. This is just as true 
of the church of Christ as of other churches. . . . 

You have made several references to my learning 
fast and coming- to the truth and will soon be bap- 
tized for the remission of sins. If you mean that 
as jest or ridicule, it does not need any answer. If 
you really think such a thing- will happen, I have 
this to say: It is extreme Methodists, like you were, 
who do radical thing's like that. People of liberal 
minds rarely ever do such thing-s. 

Reg-arding- the translations of the Bible which 
g-ive "immerse" for "baptize," I answered plainly 
in my last letter. I accept nothing- but the Author- 
ized and Revised Versions of the Bible. The word 
"immerse," nor any word meaning- the same thing-, 
is not in either of them. You have asked me to 
confine myself to the Bible, but you and Mr. Dorris 
want to prove some thing-s by wild-cat, sectarian 
translations and the opinions of pedobaptist schol- 
ars. . . . 



127 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

"Does the narrow road leading- to heaven lead 
throug-h the Methodist Episcopal Church, South?" 
Your explanation confirms my suspicion that there 
is wrapped in that g-eneral question some scheme to 
trap a fellow. I am not often caught napping-. It 
seems that you are driving- at the question: Can a 
man g-et to heaven without baptism? I do not 
think it would profit either of us; but if you are 
anxious for it, I will discuss this question with you: 
What kind of people were baptized in Bible times, 
Christians or sinners? 

In my second letter to you, dated January 21, 
1907, I said: "It would be perfectly safe for me to 
offer one thousand dollars reward for Bible proof 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism." You 
have written considerable about this, intimating- 
that I am both untruthful and dishonest. It is a 
little strang-e that you would continue a discussion 
with a person of such character. If you owned a 
farm, and some one should say, "It would be per- 
fectly safe to offer you one thousand dollars for the 
farm," would you count that an offer? Could you 
collect by law on such a statement? You have 
never accepted what you try to argue is an offer. 
You have proposed to prove that immersion is bap- 
tism by pedobaptist scholars. I said it would be 
safe to offer a reward for Bible proof. 

I hope you will arrang-e to have our correspond- 
ence published in the Gospel Advocate. 
Your friend, 

Geo. W. Nacexes. 

[This letter furnished Miss Yount nothing- to re- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 128 

ply to, hence she replies to Mr. Nackles 1 tract in 
her next. That the reader may see that Mr. 
Nackles is not misrepresented by her, we print the 
tract in full in the next chapter. — Ed.] 



THE MODE OF WATER BAPTISM. 

BY GEORGE W. NACKXES. 

PREFACE. 

The writer of this book is not a Greek scholar 
and la3 r s no claim to hig-her education. This is not 
intended for scholars and educators, but for that 
large class of people, who are not competent to 
learn on this, or any other subject, except by such 
teaching- as may be put in plain English. In some 
instances language could have been used that would 
be more interesting- and comprehensive to the highly 
educated, but the meaning- would not be so clear to 
the casual reader. Many sermons have been preach- 
ed and books written on this and other subjects 
from the standpoint of Greek definitions, and a large 
majority of the hearers and readers know nothing 
about it only what the speaker or writer said. The 
substance of this book has been used in a sermon 
delivered at various times and places for the past 
ten years. There have been many requests for this 
publication, or for a synopsis of the sermon with 
the scriptural references. To meet these requests 
and teach all who can be reached in this way, what 
the Methodist doctrine really is on this subject, this 
little book is sent forth. The Author. 

GENERAL STATEMENT. 

The mode of water baptism has been the sub- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 130 

ject of much dispute — a great deal of which has been 
bitter and unprofitable — hindering- rather than help- 
ing- the progress of true Christianity. Unpleasant 
personalities and bold assertions, without argnment, 
biblical or otherwise, have often been characteristic 
of both sides. Affusion means to pour or sprinkle 
a liquid on a person. This word will be used to 
represent all modes of baptism other than immer- 
sion. About three-fourths of the Christian popu- 
lation of America accept any mode as evang-elical 
baptism, while about one-fourth will take nothing" 
but immersion. It is unwise to assume that even 
one-fourth of a great Christian population will be- 
lieve and teach a doctrine which is neither reason- 
able nor scriptural. Let us beg-in then with the 
understanding* that there are two sides to this ques- 
tion. When honest and intellig-ent people differ it 
is the best of evidence that there are two sides to 
the question He, who assumes that his side is abso- 
lutely correct, needs to offer David's praver: "Keep 
bixk thy servant also from presumptuous sins.'" 
Some immersionists are constantly agitating- this 
question — many times making- assertions which they 
cannot prove, and sometimes making- thrusts which 
are uncharitable. It has been stated that all Chris- 
tians believe in immersion, and that Webster and 
others define baptism to mean immersion. Such 
statements are partly true, but misrepresentations, 
because they do not give all the truth. Nearly all 
Christians accept immersion as baptism, but a 
majority do not believe it is the only mode. All 
standard literarv authors "five immerse as one defi- 



131 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

nition of baptize, no author gives it as the only 
definition. The teacher who claims to be abso- 
lutely correct and all others wrong- indirectly ac- 
cuses those who differ from him of being- either 
igmorant or mean. If they know no better they are 
ig-norant; if they know better and refuse to do it 
then they are mean. This rule applies to a man 
on either side of this or any other subject. It has 
often been asserted that a man's honesty and sin- 
cerity do not make the thing's that he teaches cor- 
rect. That is a true statement, but those who make 
it usually do not seem to think that it applies to 
them as well as other teachers. 

BAPTISM DEFINED. 

Webster's Unabridg-ed Dictionary is the standard 
in the English lang-uag-e. Here is what it says: 

"Baptism, The application of water to a person, 
as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he 
is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This 
is usually performed by sprinkling- or immersion. 

•'Baptize, To administer the sacrament of baptism 
to; to christen. Bv some denominations of Chris- 
tians, baptism is performed by plunging- or immers- 
ing- the whole body in water, and this is done to 
none but adults. More generally, the ceremony is 
performed by sprinkling water on the face of the 
person, whether an infant or an adult, and in the 
case of an infant, by giving him a name, in the 
name of the Father, Son. and Holy Spirit, which is 
called christening. " 

Preference is here given to sprinkling, because 
in one definition it is mentioned first and in the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 132 

other it is said to be more generally practiced than 
immersion. These definitions seem to be based 
more on the usage of the churches than on the 
meaning - of original words. 

Adam Clarke, was one of the greatest of Bible 
scholars. He probably understood the Scriptures 
better than any uninspired man that ever lived. 
In his commentary on the baptism of John, Volume 
5, page 26, he says: 

"In what form baptism was originally admin- 
istered has been deemed a subject worthy of serious 
dispute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled? 
They were all dipped (immersed) say some. Can 
any man suppose that it was possible for John to 
dip so great a multitude as evidently came to him? 
There are also other serious difficulties in the way 
of this conclusion. But suppose these were dipped, 
(which I think it would be impossible to prove) 
does it follow that, in all regions of the world, men 
and women must be dipped in order to be evangeli- 
cally baptized? Those who are dipped or immersed 
in water, in the name of the Holy Trinity, I believe 
to be evangelically baptized; those who are washed 
or sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I believe to 
be equally so; and the repetition of such a baptism I 
believe to be profane." 

On the first page of the Authorized Version of 
the Bible may be found: 

"The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New 
Testaments, translated out of the original tongues, 
and with the former translation diligently compared 



133 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

and revised by His Majesty's special command. " 

This is the work of forty-seven scholars appointed 
by King- James of England. They were four years 
making- the translation. In the year 1870 the 
English Church appointed a committee of twenty- 
four to revise the Authorized Version. A committee 
of seventeen Americans was appointed to assist in 
the revision of the New Testament. They worked 
four days each month for eleven years. The Re- 
vised Version was published in 1881. These trans- 
lators and revisers were all Bible scholars of well- 
known ability and piety. They were well versed 
in the original lang-uag-es in which the Bible was 
written. If they had found that the original word 
for baptize means to immerse, why did they not 
translate it that way? If they did not know what 
the word meant, they were incompetent as trans- 
lators and revisers. If they willfully mistranslated 
these passag-es, then they were dishonest, and we 
should not take any of their translation. The 
translators of the Authorized Version, the com- 
mittee that prepared the Revised Version, Webster, 
and Clarke were all Greek scholars. So, without 
knowledge of Greek, we have g-iven the best of 
Greek authority for our position. The translation 
of the Authorized Version was begun in the year 
L607 — the same year that the first permanent Eng- 
lish settlement in America was founded at James- 
town, Virginia. It was completed in 1611. For 
three hundred years it has been the standard 
teacher of morals and theology in the civilized world. 
Yet no man has ever proven to the satisfaction of the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 134 

majority that it teaches any particular mode of 
baptism. It is said by some that this book has 
made the English language. Some of the chang-es 
in the Revised Version strengthen the arg-ument 
for affusion, others favor immersion. As a whole, 
it is practically the same as the Authorized Ver- 
sion. The churches in America that teach ex- 
clusive immersion were not in existence at the time 
of the translation of the Authorized Version. 
Their preachers and members have learned nearly 
all they know from scholars of the Episcopal 
Church. Baptism is the name of an ordinance, 
and neither the original nor translated words have 
any reference to a mode. It is sometimes stated 
th->t the scholars of the world have decided that 
baptize means to sprinkle. It is often asserted that 
the scholars of the world have decided that baptize 
means to immerse. It takes no knowledg-e of books 
to prove that the people are divided. Why are 
they divided? Because the scholars have not de- 
fined baptize to mean any particular mode. They 
simply refer to the fact that several modes are 
practiced. When all the scholars of the world give 
a word the same meaning - , there is never any con- 
troversy about it. The definition of words and the 
use of language is based on the authoritv of the 
best speakers and writers. When the best speakers 
and writers give a word several definitions, then 
either one of these is correct. 

A graduate of Vanderbilt Universitv and a local 
Methodist preacher recently made this statement: 
*'When I was in school, both my room-mates were 



135 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

immersionists. When we studied Greek, we nearly 
always agreed on the definition of words; but when 
I wanted to give the words the same meaning- in the 
Scriptures that we had agreed on in the class, the 
others objected." A lawyer of ability, and with a 
g-ood knowledge of Greek, makes this statement: "I 
do not see how any one can prove anything- on the 
mode of baptism by the definition of the original 
word, because the original word means so many 
different thing-s. " This man is a strong immersion- 
ist. Six definitions are of ten given for the original 
word for baptize. They are: immerse, plung-e, dip, 
sprinkle, pour, and wash. To prove immersion 
by the definition of the word, it would be necessary 
to show that the original words were never used to 
mean anything else. If it is shown that the words 
mean several things, then any mode of baptism 
is correct. 

BIBLE TEACHING. 

There are many things in the Old Testament 
which may be used in discussing the mode of bap- 
tism, but we will confine ourselves in this argument 
to the New Testament. Let us study these scrip- 
tures in the light of ordinary and generally ac- 
cepted definitions of words and the simplest con- 
struction of language. 

IMMERSION. 

We will first examine those scriptures which 
seem to teach immersion. "Then went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, 
con f essing their sins. 1 ' TMatt. 3:5-6.) 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 136 

"And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all bap- 
tized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing- their 
sins." (Mark 1:5.) Matthew says John baptized 
"in Jordan;" Mark says "in the river of Jordan." 

Baptism of Christ. "And Jesus, when he was 
baptized, went up straightway out of the water: 
and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he 
saw the Spirit of God descending- like a dove, and 
lig-hting- upon him." (Matt. 3:16.) 

"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus 
came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized 
of John in Jordan. And straig-htway coming- up 
out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and 
the Spirit like a dove descending upon him." 
(Mark 1:9,10.) 

The Eunuch. — "And he commanded the chariot 
to stand still: and they went down both into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized 
hirn. And when they were come up out of the 
water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, 
that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on 
his way rejoicing." (Acts 8:38,39.) 

John baptized ' 'in the river of Jordan, ' ' Christ was 
baptized "in Jordan" and went up straightway out 
of the water," and the eunuch went down into the 
water and came up out of the water. These ex- 
pressions seem to indicate, but do not prove, im- 
mersion. The author once baptized a man who 
went down into the river, kneeled, and had water 
poured on his head, then came up out of the water. 
It is easily demonstrated that a man may do all the 



137 AN INTERESTING COK.KKSPONDKNCK. 

things that John the Baptist, Christ, and the 
eunuch did, and not immerse or be immersed. 

Two passages in the Epistles are often quoted on 
immersion. "Therefore we are buried with him 
by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father,' even 
so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 
6:4.) The word water or any word meaning water 
is not used in the sixth of Romans. You may 
squeeze it as you would a sponge, and you cannot 
get a drop of water out of it. But suppose it does 
refer to water baptism, there is nothing in it to in- 
dicate a mode. "We are buried with him by bap- 
tism," not in baptism. It is by the ordinance and 
not by the mode. The word buried is the only 
word in the verse that can possibly have any mean- 
ing as to a mode. Bury and immerse are never 
used to mean the same thing except by immersion- 
ists on the subject of baptism. Bury means to put 
under ground; immerse, to put under water. Bury 
is to put away permanently; immerse is to put away 
temporarily — very temporarily. We bury the dead, 
we immerse the living. If one should meet a com- 
pany of people and tell them that Brother A ( with 
whom they are acquainted) is going to be buried 
to-morrow, they woul^ immediately inquire: When 
did he die? The thought of a creek would never 
enter their minds for a moment. If one should 
meet another company and inform them that Brother 
B, who is known as a sinner, is going to be im- 
mersed to-morrow, they would ask at once When 
did he join the church? They would never think 



AND INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 138 

of a cemetery. The subject under discussion in the 
sixth of Romans is get tin grid of sin and into Christ. 
If the baptism spoken of is water baptism, the in- 
timation is that water baptism may be essential to 
the pardon of sin. Those who use this scripture 
to prove immersion, but deny the necessity of water 
baptism to the pardon of sin, will find it very diffi- 
cult to explain this chapter in harmony with their 
theory. All those who believe that baptism is a 
condition of pardon, also believe that immersion is 
the only mode. This is not necessarily the case. 
It is just as reasonable to argue that baptism by 
affusion is essential to pardon. 

The second passage in the Epistles is the one so 
often repeated because of its brevity and the ease 
with which it may be remembered. "One Lord, 
one faith, one baptism." (Kph. 5:4.) 

Nothing is said here about water. But suppose 
it does mean water baptism. It is "one baptism," 
not one mode of baptism. Application of water to 
a proper subject by a proper administrator, in the 
name of the Holy Trinity, is one Christian baptism. 
There is only one baptism. There may be many 
modes. There are three persons in the Trinity, 
but this says "one Lord." There are many beliefs 
among Christians, but this text says "one faith." 
If this scripture is to be taken literally, and there 
is but one faith in one mode, then those who do not 
believe in that mode cannot be saved. There is but 
one science of mathematics, but there are many 
methods of demonstrating its principles. Oc- 
casionally some zealous immersionist tries to prove 



139 A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

his doctrine by an algebraic axiom: "Things that 
are equal to the same thing- are equal to each other." 
If immersion is equal to baptism, then baptism 
must be equal to immersion. The first statement 
is false, therefore the conclusion is not true. Im- 
mersion is not equal to baptism. One may be im- 
mersed and not be baptized. A man may immerse 
himself by diving-, but a man cannot baptize himself. 
Much Water Theory. — "And John also was bap- 
tizing- in Enon near to Salim, because there was 
much water there: and they came, and were bap- 
tized. ' ' (John 3 :23. ) ' ' Much' ' is a comparative term. 
A g-allon would be much water if one wanted a 
drink; it would be a very little water if a woman 
wanted to do a larg-e washing- of clothes. A g-lass 
of water is much water to sprinkle one person; it 
would be a very little water if three thousand 
should want to be sprinkled. 

AFFUSION. 

Pentecost. — "Then they that g-ladly received his 
word were baptized: and the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls." 
(Acts 2:41.) 

It is generally believed that this means water 
baptism, but it is not certain. It was souls added 
to the church on the day of Pentecost; and souls are 
not proper subjects for baptism. But we accept the 
general opinion that those converted at Pentecost 
were baptized with water. What were the circum- 
stances? There was not sufficient water in Jeru- 
salem to immerse three thousand people. It was 
after 9 o'clock in the morning before they began 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 140 

baptizing. The Jewish day closed at sundown. 
They only had about nine hours in which to bap- 
tize. All immersion churches require candidates 
for baptism to make a confession, one at a time, 
before the ordinance is administered. Give the 
three thousand one-half minute each for confession, 
that would be fifteen hundred minutes. There are 
only fourteen hundred and forty minutes in a whole 
day of twenty-four hours. 

Baptism of Saul. — "And Ananias went his way, 
and entered into the house; and putting- his hands 
on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, 
hath sent me, that thou mig-htest receive thy sig-ht, 
and be filled with the Holy Ghost; and immediately 
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and 
he received sig-ht forthwith, 'and arose, and was 
baptized. And when he had received meat, he was 
strengthened." (Acts 9:17-19.) 

The language and the circumstances strongly in- 
dicate that Saul simply stood up and was baptized in 
the house where he had been for three days, and 
then food was given him. He could not have re- 
mained in the house or received meat immediately 
after his baptism if he had been immersed. 

The House of Cornelius. — "For they heard them 
speak with tongTies, and magnify God. Then an- 
swered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized, which have received 
the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he command- 
ed them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
(Acts 10:46-48.) 



141 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENT :E. 

These people were in a dwelling-. There is no 
account of their leaving- the house. Peter said: 
"Can any man forbid water?" They brought tne 
water to the people. For immersion the people are 
always carried to the water. The language and 
the circumstances make it almost positive that the 
house of Cornelius was baptized by affusion. 

Philippian Jailer. — "And he took them the same 
hour of the nig-ht, and washed their stripes; and was 
baptized, he and all his, straightway." (Acts 
16:23.) 

Paul, and Silas were in prison. The prison doors 
were thrown open by an earthquake. The jailer, 
supposing- the prisoners had fled, thought to com- 
mit suicide. Paul assured him that the prisoners 
were all there. Then he came in and asked Paul 
a I as what he must do to be saved. Paul told 
him what to do, and spake the word of the Lord to 
all that were in his house. Then he and all his 
were baptized the same hour of the night. There 
- was no place in the prison for immersion. No man 
can teach a heathen family what to do to be saved, 
make the necessary preparation, go out to a river 
and immerse them, and get back ' k the same hour 
of the night." 

SPRINKLING. 

Affusionists are often asked to show sprinkling 
in the Bible. Sometimes rewards are offered if it 
can be shown. Imtnersionists would impress those 
who are ignorant of the Scriptures that immersion 
may be found almost any place and sprinkling is not 
mentioned. The truth is that sprinkling is men- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 142 

tioned a number of times and immersion is not found 
in the book. 

"So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings 
shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had 
not been told them shall they see; and that which 
they had not heard shall they consider. ,, (Isa. 
52:15.) 

"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols will I cleanse you." ( Ezek. 36:15.) 

"Let us draw near with a true heart, in full as- 
surance of faith, having- our hearts sprinkled from 
an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure 
water. " (Heb. 10:22.) 

The quotations from the Old Testament are proph- 
ecies concerning - Christ, and are, therefore, a part of 
the Christian system. The verse from Hebrews 
uses the word water and must evidently refer to 
water baptism. The words sprinkled and washed 
show that it is to be done by affusion. 

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

John's baptism was not Christian baptism. 

1. He did not have the Christian formula. It 
was after the resurrection that Christ told the dis- 
ciples in what name to baptize. "Go ye therefore, 
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." (Matt. 28:19.) John did not baptize in 
that name. It is not Christian baptism unless it is 
done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. John baptized people preparatory to receiv- 
ing Christ. Christian baptism is a confession that 



143 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

the person has already received Christ. 

2. If John's baptism was Christian, Paul made a 
mistake, or else taught that disciples should be 
baptized more than once. "And it came to pass 
that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having 
passed through the upper coasts came to Kphesus: 
and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, 
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? 
And they said unto him, We have not so much as 
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he 
said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? 
And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said 
Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of re- 
pentance, saying unto the people, that they should 
believe on him which should come after him, that 
is 2 on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
(Acts 19:1-5.) There is no other reason why these 
disciples should have been rebaptized only they 
had not received Christian baptism. 

THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST. 

Many people say the}^ were immersed because 
Christ was immersed and they take him for their 
example. But suppose Christ was immersed, his 
baptism was not Christian baptism, and we are not 
required to do things as Christ did. If Christ is 
our example as to the mode, then he should be our 
example as. to the time and purpose of baptism. 
Christ was baptized at thirty years of age; we 
should not wait that long. Christ's baptism was 
his initiation into his priestly office; we cannot be 
priests. Some sav we are baptized for the remis- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 144 

sion of sins. Christ was not baptized for that pur- 
pose, because he had no sins to be remitted. Others 
say baptism is the door into the church; it was not 
through this door that Christ came. He came in by 
rig-fit of circumcision at eig-ht days old. Those 
who are so anxious to follow Christ should follow 
the example of his parents and have their children 
baptized, and thereby recognize them as members 
of his king-dom in infancy. 

A story has been told that a number of persons 
presented themselves on a certain occasion for mem- 
bership in the Methodist Church. When the 
preacher inquired how they wanted to be baptized, 
one woman said: "I want to be baptized like Christ." 
The preacher said to the congreg-ation: "Brethren, 
we will have to take her to the creek." The 
preacher should have asked the woman how Christ 
was baptized, then she would have been very much 
puzzled. 

Following- Christ is to have the spirit of Christ, 
not doing- the same things that Christ did in the 
same way that he did them. Some thing's Christ 
did we cannot do; others we are not required to do. 

Immediately after Christ's baptism he was driven 
by the Spirit into the wilderness and was there forty 
days without food. Who ever heard of a man 
g-oing- into the wilderness after his baptism and 
even attempting- to fast forty days? An example 
or a pattern is useless unless it is followed all the 
way. What tailor would cut one piece of a gar- 
ment by a pattern and the other by g-uess? If a 
student in arithmetic should apply one part of a 



145 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

rule to a problem and changfe or omit the other 
part, would he get the correct result? If Christ is 
the example, he should have been baptized first. 
"Now when all the people were baptized, it came 
to pass, that Jesus also being- baptized, and pray- 
ing-, the heaven was opened." (Luke 3:21.) Who 
was the example of those who were baptized before 
Christ? 

WHY METHODISTS PREFER AFFUSION. 

1. Affusion is much more convenient. We would 
not change the commandment of God for conven- 
it nee; but where there is neither commandment nor 
example, then we are wholly justified in taking- the 
most convenient mode. 

2. Affusion is practicable at all times and under 
all circumstances. During- a g-eneration there has 
been two months of weather several different times 
in Middle Tennessee when no one could have been 
immersed, in a river, with safety either to the can- 
didate or the administrator. If baptism is a part 
of the making- of a Christian, it oug-ht to be safe to 
become a Christian at any time. If baptism is the 
door into the church, we oug-ht to be able to g-et into 
the church at all times. Some would have us be- 
lieve that God works miracles to prevent physical 
injury when people are baptized, therefore no harm 
can come of it. Some years ag-o we heard a preacher 
make this statement: "If a man honestly confesses 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and is on his 
way to a creek to be baptized in obedience to th>* 
g-< sp< 1, you cannot kill him with a Winchester 
rifh -." It is as much a Christian duty to attend 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 1 4b 

church as it is to be baptized. Therefore it is just 
as reasonable to say that if a man is on his way to 
church with a purpose to worship God, he cannot 
be killed with a Winchester rifle. We have too 
much summer religion and summer church-going 
that often do not last through the following- winter. 
At Woodbury, Tennessee, some colored immersion- 
ists held a meeting- during- a very cold spell when 
the creeks were all frozen over. Several persons 
joined the church. The preacher said to a leading 
woman of the church: "Sister, what we g-wine to 
do about baptizing these folks?" The woman re- 
plied: "I dunno. Guess we will have to sprinkle 
'em til spring, and den we'll 'mus 'em." 

If sprinkling will do until spring, it will be suf- 
ficient for all time. 

In the cold climates of the North Temperate and 
Frigid Zones, and the deserts composing parts of 
the earth's surface, immersion is impossible Mid- 
dle Tennessee is a well-watered country. During 
the season when there is the largest number of 
baptisms, there is not sufficient water for immersion 
within a radius of three miles of a majority of all 
the churches in this territory. To make immersion 
easy, pleasant, and safe from strangulation, it is nec- 
essary to have clear, running water, three to four 
feet deep wit' 1 a solid, smooth bottom. Invalids 
often desire to be baptized when immersion is 
dangerous, and, in some instances, impossible. 
Years ago a sick boy at Bloomington, Tennessee, de- 
sired baptism. He iiad lain on his back for sixteen 
weeks and could not br moved. His par- nts. al- 



AN INTERESTING COK KESPONDENCK 147 

though strong - believers in immersion, consented 
for him to be sprinkled. A few da} T s later he died, 
saying-: "I am going" to heaven." It would have 
been wrong to have denied that boy the privilege 
of this ordinance of the gospel because he could 
not go to a creek 

But some immerse in pools and places prepared 
for the purpose. These are more convenient than 
a river. That leaves out half the argument for 
immersion. John baptizing* the multitude and the 
baptism of Christ and the eunuch are the strongest 
scriptures for immersion. John baptized in the river 
of Jordan. The eunuch was baptized in a "certain 
water" that he and Philip came to "as they went 
on their way." The principle of changing from a 
river to a pool, or a prepared place, is about the 
same as changing from immersion to affusion. 

3. So many things happen when people are im- 
mersed that will produce laughter and break the 
solemnity of the occasion. The minister is some 
times immersed, the candidates g-et strangled, and 
many other thing's are liable to happen which will 
amuse the curious crowd that always attend immer- 
sions. Women and children, not accustomed to 
going into the water, often become so frig-htened 
that they do not know what they are doing. None 
of these things can happen when people are bap- 
tized by affusion. Baptism is, or ought to be, a 
very solemn service. 

4. The weigiit of Bible evidence favors affusion. 
While no mode can be established, the stronger evi- 
dence is on the side of affusion. The Methodist 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 148 

Church, therefore, accepts any mode. The word 
immerse, or any word meaning- the same thing-, is 
not used in the Scriptures. There is no Bible rec- 
ord that any of the twelve apostles were ever bap- 
tized with water. John baptized in Jordan, the 
three thousand were baptized on the day of Pente- 
cost, Saul and Cornelius were baptized in dwelling- 
houses, the jailer was baptized in prison, the eunuch 
was baptized in "a certain water" that he and 
Philip came to "as they went on their way;" but 
there is no intimation that any of them chang-ed 
clothing-, or made any preparation for immersion. 
All orthodox Methodists believe that immersion is 
baptism. No orthodox Methodist believes that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism.. It is a 
mistake to assert that affusion can be proven. 
That is neither Methodistic nor biblical. The fact 
that the Methodist Church has always baptized by 
any mode desired is proof that the church does not 
believe that any mode has been established. It is 
inconsistent to argue that the Bible teaches a 
certain mode and then practice other modes. The 
Methodist Church not only allows immersion, but 
makes it the duty of her ministers to immerse those 
who desire it. The baptismal ritual in the Disci- 
pline contains an address to the church, a prayer, a 
scriptural lesson, an address and some questions 
for the candidate, another prayer, followed by this 
instruction: "Then shall the minister sprinkle or 
pour water upon him (or, if he shall desire it, shall 
immerse him in water)." It does not say he may 
immerse, but he shall immerse. The ritual for in- 



L49 AN TNTEKKSTING COK KESPONDENCE 

fant baptism gives the same instruction. M:.nv 
Methodists will be surprised to know that our Dis- 
cipline requires a minister to immerse an infant if 
its parents should desire it. All churches baptize 
children. We recently heard three ministers, all 
belonging- to the same immersion church, tell about 
baptizing- children six and a half and seven and a 
half vears old. One of the ministers said: "Salva- 
tion is not a matter of knowledg-e; it is a matt r of 
trust." That statement is true, but the mode of 
baptism is a matter of knowledge. No child under 
twelve vears of age is competent to decide for itself 
by what mode it should be baptized. The princi- 
ple involved in baptizing small children is practi- 
cally the same as baptizing- infants. 

John baptized "with water." All immersionists 
baptize in wat^r. Therefore John ilid not immerse. 
When a man baptizes "with water" he applies the 
wah-r to the person, when he baptizes in water he 
applies the person to the water. Affusion is bap- 
tizing "with water;" immersion is baptizing in 
water. Matthew's account of the baptism of Christ 
says: "And Jesus, when he was baptiz-d. w. nt up 
straightway out of the water." Analyze this sen- 
tence. Jesus is the subject, went is the verb, ex- 
pressing the action. When he was baptized is an 
adverbial phrase of time, tnodify'ng- the verb went. 
Up ann straight wav are adverbs telling- where and 
how Je^us went. There is no sort of reference to 
John the Baptist in tru- sentence quoted. Many 
people of ^11 churches s^em to have g*otten the idea 
th.it tlie m .-lining- of this scripture is expressed in 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 150 

words like these: As John lifted Jesus up out of the 
water he saw the heavens opened. By analysis it 
is clearly seen that no such meaning" was intended. 
John's baptism and Christ's baptism were not 
Christian baptism. Whatever mode was used in 
these cases is no guide for Christians. So we nar- 
row down to the teaching-s found in the Acts of the 
Apostles. The baptism of the eunuch is the only 
case found in Acts where there is even an intima- 
tion of immersion. Philip and the eunuch went 
down into the water and came up out of the water. 
A man may do both these thing's and not be im- 
mersed. Nothing - is said of the eunuch that is not 
said of Philip. If the eunuch was immersed then 
Philip was also immersed. In the cases of the Pen- 
tecostal converts, Saul, the house of Cornelius, and 
the Philippian jailer, the lang-uag-e and the circum- 
stances strong-ly indicate affusion. So we have four 
cases for affusion ag-ainst one for immersion. What 
then can be proven on the subject? Nothing" at 
all. Why then preach or write on a subject to 
prove nothing"? The immersionists have been 
preaching" and writing" on this subject for a century, 
and more, and they have failed so far to prove any- 
thing". We have done no worse tiian they. If the 
position taken in this book should be established 
in the minds of all people what would be the result? 
It would do awaj^ with immersion entirely In 
order to establish exclusive immersion it is neces- 
sary to show that mode was used in Bible times, 
and that no other mode was used in those times. 
If one clear case can be cited and there is no inti- 



151 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

ination of any other mode then immersion is the 
only mode. In the absence of such proof, affusion 
is baptism and should be practiced by ail people for 
the reasons previously given. It is a well-known 
rule of arg-ument that the burden of proof must be 
made by the affirmative. The immersionist has the 
affirmative of this question. If he cannot make 
positive proof then his theor} T fails without any ar- 
g-ument from the negative. Some aflusionists have 
allowed themselves to fall into the habit of the im- 
mersionist, and say certain people have been sprin- 
kled and others have been baptized (immersed). 
Let us speak of all people, who have received the 
ordinance, as having- been baptized. If inquiry is 
made about the mode then we can explain. 

QUESTIONS ANSWERED. 

The following- questions have often been asked by 
immersionists: 

1. Is it not safer to be immersed since a majority 
of Christians accept immersion as baptism? The 
immersion churches hold views on the Communion, 
and other doctrines, which a larg-e majority of 
Christians do not accept. If the belief of the ma- 
jority is to be taken on one subject then we should 
take that on all subjects. If a creed should be 
adopted by a majority of all Protestant Christians 
in America, the Methodists would win everv point. 
The majority agrees with us. 

2. Why do so many people g-et dissatisfied with 
affusion and want to be immersed? There are not 
so many g-et dissatisfied as immersionists would 
make believe. A larg-e majority of Christians live 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 152 

and die in the church they first join. Only a few 
are rebaptized. It is a rare thing- to hear 3.ny one 
argue that immersion is not baptism. Dissatisfac- 
tion is brought about by agitation and influence. 
The immersionists are constantly preaching- and 
arg-uing- that affusion is not baptism. People who 
are connected with immersionists in ways that 
they may be influenced by them sometimes become 
dissatisfied throug-h this influence. If no one here- 
after will deny that affusion is baptism, and a good- 
ly number of preachers will preach that immersion 
is not baptism; there will be just as many people, 
who will g-et dissatisfied with immersion, and want 
to be sprinkled. Some immersionists make a spe- 
cialty of trying- to dissatisfy members of oth r 
churches about affusion. They make much « do 
about knowing the truth anddoingthe right thin 
Should the. affusionist remain in the affusion church 
that class of immersionists do not care a straw 
whether he is rebaptized or not. The purpose of such 
argument is to proselyte members of affusion church- 
es. Any affusionist will find this true if he wi%\ 
test the matter. Should he appear to be dissatisfied 
with his baptism, but declare his intention of being- 
immersed in the affusion church; the immersionist 
will tell him that the affusionist does not believe 
in immersion, and that it is wrong to be immersed 
by a man who does not believe in it. He will also 
argue that the affusionists have societies, organised 
by men, but that they do not belong to the church 
at all. He will likely add that they are always 
wanting money, and it costs too much to belong to 



L53 AN rNTE RESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

these societies. He will in these, and other ways, 
make it very plain that what he wants is the af- 
fusionist to join his church. When he is throug-h 
(if he ever g-ets through) we sug-g-est that the af- 
fusionist open his Bible and read: "Woe unto you, 
scribes and Pharisees, and hypocrites! for ye com- 
pass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when 
he is made, ye make him twofold more the child 
of hell than yourselves." (Matt. 23:15.) These 
proselyting- immersionists are very presumptuous 
and very persistent. They often argue with and 
propose to teach people who know a great deal 
more about the subject than themselves. When 
protracted meeting-s are being- held in other church- 
es, they sometimes g-o around with their Libles to 
arg-ue about baptism and other disputed doctrines; 
for the purpose of hindering- the meeting-, dissatis- 
fying- other church members, or preventing- people 
from joining- the church. They are given to mak- 
ing- propositions, to do certain thing-s; and offering- 
rewards if certain doctrines can be proven by the 
Scriptures. They will propose to leave their church 
and join another, or will offer a certain sum of 
money, if some one will show them sprinkling- in 
the Bible. It is always safe to make such propo- 
sitions on either side of this subject. This book 
will make the mode of baptism very clear to some 
of those who believe in affusion. It will instruct 
those who have not investig-ated the subject, and 
help those who are in doubt. But the immersionist 
whose views are firmly fixed, will declare, after he 
reads it, that he believes his doctrine stronger than 



AJS INTERESTING COK KEGrOIi DENCH. 154 

he ever did before. These doctrines are a matter 
of opinion. It is easy to show things in the Bible 
to people who believe they are there; it is impossi- 
ble to show them to people who do not believe they 
are there. 

QUESTIONS ASKED. 

The following questions have never been satis- 
factorily answered by immersion ists: 

1. If a mode is essential to baptism then why did 
not God make it so plain that it could not reasona- 
bly be misunderstood? To say that it is plain is 
dodging the question, and reflecting on the honesty 
and intelligence of those who believe differently. 
If the word immerse, sprinkle or pour had been 
used in a half dozen places in the Scriptures it 
would have settled the controversy forever. How 
easy it could have been done! 

2. If a man can be baptized by affusion, be a 
Christian, and get to heaven when he dies, then why 
be immersed? This question may be answered by 
saying: Those who are taught and believe that 
immersion is the only mode might do wrong to be 
sprinkled, and would not be satisfied with it. This 
brings up another question. If it is only a matter 
of teaching, belief, and satisfation; then why not 
teach all the children that affusion is right, and in 
a few years there will be no immersionists? Many 
efforts have been made on both sides of this ques- 
tion to prove something from history. Tracing the 
history of baptism is very much like traveling in 
the flatwoods or barrens. There are many roads. 
They all look alike. The traveler, after some hes- 



L55 A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

itation, selects his road and starts on his journey. 
The road grows dim, and finally gives out entirely, 
and he is lost. The history of baptism may be con- 
nected very well during- the past three or four 
hundred years. Back of that the road grows dim 
and the Dark Ag-es finds the historian completely 
lost. Prom A.D. 400 to A.D. 1400 there is very 
little connected history of anything. Those 
churches that claim apostolic succession, and en- 
deavor to trace their history back to the apostles, 
have about the same task as the man who counts 
the inhabitants of the moon. 

While we do not propose to prove anything- by 
history, we will insert one statement: 

"The earliest rude remains of Christian art in the 
catacombs represent John as baptizing- on the side 
of a stream of water by affusion." 

The above is quoted from the Standard Dictiona- 
rv. and is the strong-est historical point on either 
side of the question we have ever seen. 

WHAT OTHERS THINK. 

Great writers often quote liberally from other 
scholars. It is still more important that men of 
ordinary ability give g-ood authority for their posi- 
tions. We have quoted from Webster, Clarke, and 
others. The Bible is the only greater authority 
-than these. 

In the year 1839 Amos Binney, an able biblical 
scholar of Andover, Massachusetts, published a 
book titled: "The Theological Compend. ,, It is 
a short, plain statement of Christian doctrines. In 
1861 this Compend was revised by Rev. Thos. O. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 156 

Summers, D.D. The following- is what Binney 
says on the subject under discussion: 

"As to the mode of baptism, nothing- particular 
is specified in the Scriptures. 

"The command is to baptize, without designat- 
ing- the mode. The mode, therefore, is not essen- 
tial, or, if it beessenitial, it would seem that sprink- 
ling- is the proper mode; as 

"1. Water baptism is an emblem of spiritual 
baptism, or of the influences of the Holy Ghost 
upon the heart. Both are called baptism. It is 
therefore reasonable that we look for a resemblance 
in the mode. But the mode of spiritual baptism is 
uniformly by sprinkling- or pouring-. 

"2. The mode of immersion is unfavorable to 
universal practice, while the other modes can be 
performed in any place, at any time, and to any 
person: in the desert waste, or in the city full; by 
the side of Jordan, at the house of Cornelius, in 
Philippi's prison, by the penitent's cross, or on the 
bed of sickness and death; to the Greenlander on 
his icy mountain, or the African in the desert of 
Sahara; in winter and in summer, by night and by 
day. 

"3. Baptism by sprinkling-, or affusion, may 
always take place with decency, modesty, and pro- 
priety, which cannot be said of immersion. 

"4. The Scriptures give no account of persons 
g-oing- away from the place of worship to be bap- 
tized; on the contrary, baptism is represented as 
taking- place where they were at the time of wor- 
ship, or conversion. 



157 AN INTEKKSTING CORRESPONDENCE 

"5. Baptism is never said to be in wattr, but 
with water. But by immersion the person is ad- 
ministered to the element, and not the element to 
the person. 

"6. On the day of Pentecost three thousand were 
baptized in the city of Jerusalem, which stands on 
a hill, where there is neither river, pond, nor sea. 

"7. The phrases in the English translation of 
the New Testament, 'went down into the water,' 
and 'came up out of the water,' are no proof of im- 
mersion; for nothing- is said of the eunuch that is 
not said of Philip. Besides, the original word, here 
translated into and out of, might have been render- 
ed to or unto with equal propriety, as it often is. 

"8. As to the apostle's expression, 'buried with 
him in baptism,' as Christ was buried and rose 
again to a heavenly life, so we, by baptism, signify 
that we are separated from sin, that we may live a 
new life of faith and love. It signifies the same as 
'planted together in the likeness ot his death,' and 
'crucified with him.' 

"9. Finally, Christ and his apostles have left the 
mode of baptism undefined, as they have also the 
mode of receiving the Lord's Supper; for the obvious 
reason, that there can be no importance in the men 
mode. 

"10. The baptism of Christ is no example for us, 
as his was not gospel baptism; not being baptism 
in the name of the Trinity, as that would be in his 
own name, with those of the Father and of the 
Holy Ghost, nor unto repentance, having no sin to 
repent of. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 158 

"He was baptized as a priest; hence, he Wc.s not 
baptized till he was thirty years of age, which, 
among - the Jews, was the time of life to be inducted 
into that office." 

CONCLUSION. 

Baptism is a solemn ordinance, and should be en- 
tered into with reverence and seriousness. Its im- 
portance has been underestimated by some and over- 
estimated by many. If performed by immersion 
one may be reminded of John the Baptist, preach- 
ing- and baptizing by the Jordan, preparing the 
people for the reception of the Messiah; or the 
Christ, submitting to this ordinance to fulfill all 
righteousness, when God the Father spake those 
words of approval of his Son, and the Holy Ghost 
descended in the form of the most innocent of all 
living creatures. You may think of that treasurer 
of the Ethiopian queen, listening to the gospel as 
he drove <Jong the way, stopping his chariot by 
"a certain water," receiving baptism at the hands 
of Philip, who was caught away by the Spirit of 
the Lord, that the eunuch saw him no more. If 
performed by affusion you may catch the spirit of 
that great revival at Pentecost, and the three 
thousand who were added to the church when 
Christian baptism was first administered; or of that 
man who because the greatest of all apostles, and 
the most wonderful of all human characters, strick- 
en with blindness on his way to Damascus, praying 
to God for three days, hearing the voice of Ananias 
bringing him the promise of the Lord, see the 
scales fall from his eyes, and watch him stand and 



159 AN INTERESTING COKKKSPONDENCE. 

reverently receive the ordinance of baptism. Be- 
hold Peter preaching- to the house of Cornelius, see 
the Holy Ghost fall on them, hear the apostle call- 
ing- for water with which to baptize the first Gen- 
tile converts to Christianity. Hear the voice of 
Paul and Silas as they are praying- and singing- in 
Phillipi's jail at the midnight hour, see that trem- 
bling jailer falling before them inquiring: "Wha^t 
must I do to be saved?" Paul strikes the keynote 
of salvation in his reply: "Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The same 
hour of the night this believing prison keeper rep- 
resented his cleansing and confessed his faith by 
receiving holy baptism. 

Some preachers and many people show their ir- 
reverence by giggling at, or remarking about, every 
awkward move made at a baptizing or telling 
funny yarns about such things. If we are so fortu- 
nate as to enter the pearly gates and walk the gold- 
en streets of the city of God, we are sure to meet 
many people, who were baptized by all the modes 
practiced by all the churches of the land. No 
question will be asked at the judgment about bap- 
tism. In Christ's own account of it he says, that 
those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit 
and minister to those who are sick and those in 
prison, will be admitted into his eternal king-dom. 






LETTKK KKOM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Gooodlettsville, Tenn., July 15, 1907.— Mr. 
George W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
Yours of June 24 received. The letter contains 
nothing- to reply to. 

Since your letter affords me no work, it follows 
that if I have anything" to do in the way of writing 1 
an article, I will have to look up something inde- 
pendent of it. Hence, according- to promise made 
in my first reply to you, I will in this examine your 
tract on "The Mode of Water Baptism." The first 
thing- I notice is your definition. In this you de- 
ceive your reader unless he is careful. You quote 
Webster, and then add: "These definitions seem to 
be based more on the usag-e of the churches than 
on the meaning- of the original words." Why did 
you not state that Webster whs giving- the mean- 
ing- of theEngiish word "baptize" as used to-dny, 
and not the Greek word "baptidzo" as used by 
Christ and the apostles more than eighteen hundred 
years ago? Webster gave the meaning of the 
English word "baptize" hundreds of years after the 
churches perverted and corrupted the teaching and 
practice of Christ and the apostles bv introducing 
the doctrines and commandments of men. To get 
the truth on this subject, one must get the mean- 
ing of the Greek word "baptidzo" at the time Christ 
and the apostles used it. Had you done this, you 
would have given the true definition and would not 
have deceived your readers. Your first argument 



161 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

is deception, and the body of the tract is no better 
than the first argument. Strange you would cover 
up the truth in such style. But you have it to do 
in order to get your doctrine accepted. If you un- 
cover the truth and present it, your doctrine would 
vanish as a mist before the rising sun; and this is 
why you cover up the truth instead of presenting 
it as it is. No one can be honest with himself, 
with his fellow-man, or with God, and thus act. 
When will you cease perverting the truth? 

According to Webster, one is "initiated into the 
visible church of Christ" by baptism. Mr. Clement, 
in his letter to me of May 1, 1906, says: "The 
children are members of the kingdom of God; there- 
fore children ;ire fit subjects for baptism." You 
tell us that you do not recognize children as mem- 
bers of the kingdom. Here are three strong wit- 
nesses, and each contradicts the others. Which 
shall we accept? 

On p'ge 5 you say: "The churches in America 
that teacli exclusive immersion were not in exist- 
ence at the time of the translation of the Author- 
ized Version. Their preachers and members have 
learned nearly all they know from scholars of the 
Episcopal Church." On pages 4 and 5 you say: 
"The translation of the Authorized Version was 
begun in thi- year 1607" and "completed in 1611." 
The church of Christ was established in the days 
of the apostles, hundreds of years previous to these 
dates, and I h;!ve nrver been nble to find one scrip- 
ture where this church practiced anything for bap- 
tism but immersion. Can you product- one scrip- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 162 

ture Showing- that any one had water sprinkled or 
poured on him for baptism? Those who belong- to 
the church we read about in the Bible, and practice 
nothing- but what is authorized by Christ and the 
apostles, receive their knowledg-e and faith from 
the New Testament; but those belonging - to human 
institutions, such as the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, and practice things not authorised by 
the Lord, such as sprinkling- and infant baptism, g*et 
what they know about these from the "Episcopal 
Church" or some other human institution, from the 
fact they are not found in the Bible. Where is the 
chapter and verse found in the Bible that mentions 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, or that 
shows that the apostles sprinkled or poured water 
for baptism?'' Why did you not express the truth 
by saying-: "The churches praeting- effusion and 
infant baptism did not exist in the days of the 
apostles nor for hundreds of years after?" 

On pagv 7 you quote Rom 6: 4, and then add: 
"The word 'water,' or any word meaning- water, is 
not used in the sixth of Romans. You may squeeze 
it as you would a spong-e, and vou cannot get a drop 
of water out of it." John Wesley, the founder of 
the Methodist Church, in commenting- on this 
scripture, says: " 'Buried with him' — alluding- to 
the ancient manner of baptizing" bv immersion." 
("Notes on New Testament.") Weslev "squeezed" 
enoug-h water out of it to get immersion. Was 
Wesley a good Methodist and sound in the faith? 

On same pag*e vou sav: " 'Burv' and 'immerse' 
;ir.' <i*iv^i' used to m^an th^ sam^ thine, except bv 



C OR KESPONDEXCK 

immersionists on the subject of baptism.** What 
about the above quotation from Wesley? Your 
ment does not hold good even with the prac- 
and teaching of the Methodist Church. Here 
is more of Wesle - te ching and practice: "Marv 
Welch, aged eleven days baptized according 

to the custom of the first church, and the rule of 
the Church of England, by immersion. The child 
was ill then, but recovered from that hour." 
"Journal." Vol. I, page 20. ) Again, he says: "I 
was asked to baptize a cbild of Mr. Parker's, sec- 
ond bailiff of Savannah; but Mrs. Parker told me: 
'Neither Mr. Parker nor I will consent to its being 
dipped . * I ans werd: 'If you * 'certify that your child 
is weak, it will suffice ((the rubric says) to pour 
water upon it."' She replied: *Nay, the child 
is not weak, but I am resolved it shall not be 
dipped/ This argument I could not confute. Sol 
went home, and the child was baptized by another 
person/' ( "Journal/' Vol. I, page 24.) Later 
Wesley was tried and condemned. He gives ten 
reasons why this was done, and the fift":: By 

refusing to baptize Mr. Parker's child, otherwise 
than by dipping, except the parents would certify 
it was weak, and not able to bear it." "Journal." 
Vol. I, page 42 

>ley was a good Methodist and the father of 
Methodism, and he "squeezed" enough water 
out of Rom. 6:4 to immerse sick infants and to re- 
fuse to baptize infants except by immersion. 
ts before vou, do you not think you 
should tak*- back the statement: " *Burv* and 'im- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 164 

merse' are never used to mean the same thing-, ex- 
cept by immersionists on the subject of baptism?' " 
Did you really think you could palm off such and 
not have it called in question? 

In your "Preface" is found these words: "The 
substance of this book has been used in a sermon 
delivered at various times and places for the past 
ten years." Do you mean to say that you have 
been teaching- for ten long- years that " 'bury' and 
'immerse' are never used to mean the same thing, 
except by immersionists?" If so, for truth's sake, 
retrace your steps the next ten years and correct 
the mistake. Tell the people that John Wesley, 
the founder of the Methodist Church, "sqeezed" 
immersion out of the word "bury." 

On pag-e 11 you say: "Affusionists are often asked 
to show sprinkling- in the Bible. Sometimes re- 
wards are offered if it can be shown. Immersionists 
would impress those who are ignorant of the Scrip- 
tures that immersion may be found almost anyplace 
and sprinkling is not mentioned. The truth is that 
sprinkling is mentioned a number of times and im- 
mersion is not found in the book." You quote Isa. 
52:15; Ezek. 36:25; and Heb. 10:22 to sustain your 
position. According to your teaching, these three 
scriptures refer to the same thing. Hence, if you 
are wrong on one, you are wrong as to the other 
two. Ezek. 36:25 reads thus: "Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from 
all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I 
cleanse you." If this proves sprinkling for Chris- 
tian baptism, then baptism is for the remission of 



\N IN'TEKKSTING COKKESPONDENCh 

Mns. from the fact that the cleansing took place in 
the sprinkling- — that is. the person sprinkled was to 
be clean after, and not before, the sprinkling;. Will 
accept your proof text? Then tell the people 
that they will be clean after being sprinkled Why 
do you fight baptism for the remission of sins and 
then introduce this scripture as authority foi 
sprinkling? 

But does Isa. 52:15 and Ezek. 36:25 refer to bap- 
tism? By reading Num. 19 we rind how "clean 
water." "water of purification. " or "water of sep- 
aration," was made. It was not pure water in the 
sense that we use the word "pure," but water and 
ashes of a heifer mixed. In Heb. 9:13 Paul teaches 
that this sprinkling is for the purifying of the* flesh. 
Peter teaches us that baptism is not for this purpose 
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us (not the putting away the filth of the 
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (lPrt. 
3:21.) This being true, therefore the "sprinkling 
of clean water" in Ezek. 36:25 and baptism of the 
New Testament are not the same. 

But what about Heb. 10:22? "Let us draw ne;ir 
with a true heart in full assurance of fahh. having 
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and 
<>ur bodies washed with pure water." You add: 
"The verse from Hebrews uses the word 'water. 
and must evidently refer to water baptism. The 
words 'sprinkled' and 'washed' show that it is to be 
done by affusion." Bright thoughts indeed! When 
the washerwoman washes jour clothes,, does she do 






A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 166 

it by sprinkling- a little water on them? You ad- 
mit that this scripture refers to water baptism. 
Here the sprinkling" could not refer to baptism, 
from the fact that it is the heart that is sprinkled, 
and not the head. The washing- could not refer to 
sprinkling-, for it is the body washed, and not the 
head. In sprinkling people, do you sprinkle the 
head or the heart? If the head, you sprinkle the 
wrong- thing-. If the heart, then how do you reach 
the heart with the water? What is "washed with 
pure water?" Paul says: "Our bodies." Is the 
body washed in sprinkling, or in immersion? When 
one is buried in baptism, his body is washed, but 
never in sprinkling. 

It is true that sprinkling is mentioned a number 
of times in the Bible, but it is equally true that not 
one time does it refer to baptism, as is clearly seen 
by a faithful examination. The Old Testament was 
first written in Hebrew. There are two Hebrew 
words translated "sprinkled" in the English trans- 
lation — viz., "zarak" and "nazrah." 

I. "nazrah" appears twenty -four times. 

1. "Nazrah" is used twelve times relative to 
sprinkling blood. "And the priest shall dip his 
finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven 
times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanc- 
tuary." (Lev. 4:6.) "And the priest shall dip his 
finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven 
times before the Lord, even before the vail." 
( Verse 17.) "And he shall take of the blood of the 
bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the 
mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat 



167 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven 
times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin of- 
fering-, that is for the people, and bring- his blood 
within the \ail, and do with that blood as he did 
with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon 
the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat." (Lev. 
16:14,15.) "And he shall sprinkle of the blood 
upon it with his fing-er seven times, and cleanse it, 
and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children 
of Israel.'' (Verse 19.) "And he shall sprinkle 
of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the 
altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out 
at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering." 
(Lev. 5:9.) "Whatsoever shall touch the flesh 
thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled 
of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt 
wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy 
place.'' ("Lev. 6:27.) "And Eleazar the priest 
shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle 
of her blood directlj 7 before the tabernacle of the 
congregation seven times." (Num. 19:4.) "And he 
said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: 
and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, 
and on the horses: and he trode her under foot." 
(2 Kings 9:33.) "I have trodden the winepress 
alone; and of the people there was none with me: 
for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample 
them in my fury; and their blood shall besprinkled 
upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." 
(Isa. 63:3.) 

2. As to sprinkling blood and oil, it is used twice. 
"And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the 



A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 168 

altar, and of the anointing* oil, and sprinkle it upon 
Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, 
and upon the g-arments of his sons with him: and 
he shall be hallowed, and his g-arments, and his 
sons." (Ex. 29:21.) "And Moses took of the 
anointing* oil, and of the blood which was upon the 
altar, and sprinkled it upon Aaron, and upon his 
g-arments, and upon his sons, and upon his sons' 
g-arments with him; and sanctified Aaron, and his 
g-arments, and his sons, and his sons' g-arments 
with him." (Lev. 8:30.) 

3. It refers to sprinkling- of a mixture of blood 
and water twice. "As for the living- bird, he shall 
take it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and 
the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living- bird 
in the blood of the bird that was killed over the 
running- water: and he shall sprinkle upon him that 
is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and 
shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living 
bird loose into the open field." (Lev. 14:6,7.) 
"And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, 
and the scarlet, and the living- bird, and dip them 
in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running 
water, and sprinkle the house seven times." (Verse 
51.) 

4. It refers to sprinkling* oil three times. "And 
Moses took the anointing- oil, and anointed the tab- 
ernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified 
them. And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar 
seven times, and anointed the altar and all his ves- 
sels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them." 
(Lev. 8:10,11.) "And the priest shall dip his rig-ht 



169 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

ringer in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall 
sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times be- 
fore the Lord." (Lev. 14:16.) "And the priest 
shall sprinkle with his right fing-er some of the oil 
that is in his left hand seven times before the Lord." 
(Verse 27.) 

5. Relative to sprinkling- water and ashes mixed, 
four times. "And thus shalt thou do unto them, 
to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying- upon 
them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let 
them wash their clothes, and so make themselves 
clean." (Num. 8:7.) "And a clean person shall 
take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle 
it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon 
the persons that were there, and upon him that 
touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave: 
and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean 
on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on 
the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash 
his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall 
be clean at even." (Num. 19:18,19.) "Anditshall 
be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that 
sprinkle th the water of separation shall wash his 
clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separa- 
tion shall be unclean until even." (Verse 21.) 

II. The word "zarak" is used thirty-five times. 

1. It is used twenty-four times relative to sprin- 
kling blood. "And thou shalt slay the ram, and 
thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round 
about upon the altar." (Ex. 29:16.) "Then shalt 
thou kill the ram, and take of his blood, and put it 
upon the tip of the right ear of Aaron, and upon 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 170 

the tip of the right ear of his sons, and upon the 
thumb of their right hand, and upon the great toe 
of their right foot, and sprinkle the blood upon the 
altar round about." (Verse 20.) "And Moses 
took half of the blood, and put it in a basin; and 
half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar." (Ex. 
24:6.) "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled 
it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the 
covenant, which the Lord hath made with you con- 
cerning all these words." (Verse 8.) "And he 
shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests, 
Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle 
the blood round about upon the altar that is by the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 
1:5.) "And he shall kill it on the side of the altar 
northward before the Lord: and the priests, Aaron's 
sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the 
altar." (Verse 11.) "And he shall lay his hand 
upon the head of his offering, and kill it at the door 
of the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron's 
sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the 
altar round about." (Lev. 3:2.) "And he shall 
lay his hand upon the head of his offering, and kill 
it before the tabernacle of the congregation: and 
Aaron's sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof round 
about upon the altar." (Verse 8.) "And he shall 
lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before 
the tabernacle of the congregation: and the sons of 
Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the 
altar round about." (Verse 13.) "And he killed 
it; and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar 
round about." (Lev. 8:19.) "And he brought 



L71 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Aaron's sons, and Motes put of the blood upon the 
tip of their right ear, and upon the thumbs of their 
right hands, and upon the great toes of their right 
feet: and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar 
round about." (Verse 24.) "And the priest shall 
sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn 
the fat for a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Lev. 17:6. ) 
"And he burnt his burnt offering, and his meat 
offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprin- 
kled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar." 
(2 Kings 16:13.) "And king Ahaz commanded 
Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn 
the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat 
offering, and the king's burnt sacrifice, and his 
meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the 
people of the land, and their meat offering, and 
their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the 
blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the 
sacrifice: and the brazen altar shall be forme to in- 
quire by." (Verse 15.) 'In the place where they 
kill the burnt offering shall they kill the trespass 
offering: and the blood thereof shall he sprinkle 
round about upon the altar." (Lev. 7:2. ) "ItshaJ 
be the priests that sprinkleth the blood of the peace 
offerings." (Verse 14.) "And they slew the 
burnt offering; and Aaron's sons presented unto 
him the blood which he sprinkled round about upon 
the altar." (Lev. 9:12. ) "He slew also the bul- 
lock and the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings, 
which was for the people: and Aaron's sons present- 
ed unto him the blood, which he sprinkled upon the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 172 

altar round about." (Verse 18.) "So they killed 
the bullocks, and the priests received the blood, 
and sprinkled it on the altar: likewise when they 
had killed the rams, they sprinkled the blood upon 
the altar: they killed also the lambs, and they 
sprinkled the blood upon the altar." (2 Chron. 29: 
22.) "And they stood in their place after their 
manner, according- to the law of Moses the man of 
God: the priests sprinkled the blood, which they re- 
ceived of the hand of the Levites." (2 Chron. 30: 
16. ) "And they killed the passover, and the priests 
sprinkled the blood from their hands, and the Le- 
vites flayed them." (2 Chron. 35:11.) 

2. It refers twice to the sprinkling- of ashes and 
water mixed. "Whatsoever toucheth the dead 
body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not 
himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and 
that soul shall be cut off frcm Israel: because the 
water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he 
shall be unclean; his uncleanneas is yet upon him." 
(Num. 19:13.) "But the man that shall be unclean, 
and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut 
off from among- the congreg-ation, because he hath 
defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the water of sep- 
aration hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is 
unclean." (Verse 20.) 

3. As to scattering- small, solid substances, it is 
used seven times. "And they brake down the al- 
tars of Baalim in his presence; and the imag-es, 
that were on hig-h above them, he cut down; and 
the groves, and the carved images, and the molten 
images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them, 



173 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

and strewed it upon the graves of them that had 
sacrificed unto them." (2Chron. 34:4.) "And 
when they lifted up their eyes afar off, and knew 
him not, they lifted up their voice, and wept; and 
they rent every one his mantle, and sprinkled dust 
upon their heads toward heaven." (Job 2:12.) 
"When he hath made plain the face thereof, doth 
he not cast abroad the fitches, and scatter the cum- 
min, and cast in the principal wheat and the ap- 
pointed barley and the rye in their places?" (Isa. 
28:25.) "And he spake unto the man clothed with 
linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even 
under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of 
fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them 
over the city. And he went in in my sight. " 
(Ezek. 10:2.) "Strangers have devoured his 
strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs 
are here and there upon him. yet he knoweth not." 
(Hos. 7:9. ) "And the Lord said unto Moses and 
unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the 
furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the 
heaven in the sight of Pharaoh." (Ex. 9:8.) 
"And they took ashes of the furnace, and stood be- 
fore Pharaoh; and Moses sprinkled it up toward 
heaven; and it became a boil breaking forth with 
blains upon man, and upon beast." (Verse 10 ) 
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from 
all your idols, will I cleanse you." (Ezek. 36:25.) 
The words "nazrah" and "zarak" are not always 
translated by "sprinkle" either in the Common 
Version or in the Revised Version, but sometimes 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 174 

by "scatter" and "strew," and once (Hos. 7:9) 
"zarak" is rendered, which the context allows, by 
"here and there." 

As already seen, Ezek. 36:25 could not refer to 
Christian baptism, from the fact that Paul teaches 
us this sprinkling - was for the "putting- away of the 
filth of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13), and that Peter tells 
us that baptism is not for the "putting away of the 
filth of the flesh" (1 Pet. 3:21), but "for the remis- 
sion of sins" (Acts 2:38). 

Relative to sprinkling - , in the New Testament it 
is found seven times, and each time it is in connec- 
tion with the sprinkling- of blood. "For if the 
blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer 
sprinkling- the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
of the flesh." (Heb. 9:13.) "For when Moses had 
spoken every precept to all the people according- to 
the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, 
with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and 
sprinkled both the book and all the people." (Verse 
19.) "Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood 
both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the min- 
istry." (Verse 21.) "Let us draw near with a true 
heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22.) 
"Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprin- 
kling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn 
should touch them." (Heb. 11:28.) '"AndtoJesus 
the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood 
of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than 
that of Abel." (Heb. 12:24.) "Elect according 



175 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and 
sprinkling* of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto 
you, and peace, be multiplied." (1 Pet. 1:2.) 

"Pouringr" in the New Testament is found as 
follows. The substance poured is — 

(1) Wine. "Neither do men put new wine into 
old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine 
runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put 
new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." 
(Matt. 9:17.) "And no man putteth new wine into 
old bottles; else the new wine doth burst the bot- 
tles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be 
marred: but new wine must be put into new bot- 
tles." (Mark 2:22.) 

(2) Money. "And when he had made a scourge 
of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, 
and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the 
changers' money, and overthrew the tables." (John 
2:15.) 

(3) Holy Spirit. 'And it shall come to pass in 
the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my 
Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your 
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall 
see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 
and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will 
pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall 
prophesy." (Acts 2:17,18.) "Therefore being by 
the right hand of God exalted, and having received 
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he 
hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." 
(Verse 33 ) "And they of the circumcision which 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 176 

believed were astonished, as many as came with 
Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured 
out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10:45.) 
"Not bj 7 works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by 
the washing - of regeneration, and renewing" of the 
Holy Ghost: which he shed on us abundantly 
through Jesus Christ our Saviour." (Tit. 3:5,6.) 

(4) Oil and wine. "And went to him, and bound 
up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set 
him on his own beast, and brougiit him to an inn, 
and took care of him." (Luke 10:34.) 

(5» Ointment. "There came unto him a woman 
having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, 
and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat." 
(Matt. 26:7. ) "For in that she hath poured this 
ointment on my body, she did it for my burial." 
(Verse 12.) "And being in Bethany, in the house 
of Simon th, leper, as he sat at meat, there came a 
woman having* an alabaster box of ointment of 
spikenard very precious: and she brake the box, and 
poured it on his head." (Mark 14:3.) 

(6) Water into a basin. "After that he poureth 
water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples' 
feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith 
he was girded." (John 13:5.) 

(7) Vials of wrath. "And the first wen , and 
poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell 
a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which 
had the mark of the beast, and upon them which 
worshiped his image. And the second angel poun d 
out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the 



177 AN INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCE. 

blood of a dead man: and every living- soul died in the 
sea. And the third angel poured out his vial upon 
the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became 
blood. 1 ' (Rev. 16:2-4.) "And the fourth angel 
poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was 
given unto him to scorch men with fire," (Verse 
8. ) "And the fifth ang-el poured out his vial upon the 
seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of dark- 
ness; and they g-nawed their tong-ues for pain."' 
(^ Verse 10.) "And the sixth ang-el poured out his 
vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water 
thereof was dried up, that the way of the king's of 
tae east migiit be prepared." (Verse 12.) "And 
the seventh ang-el poured out his vial into the air; 
and there came a great voice out of the temple of 
heaven, from the throne, saying-, It is done." 
(Verse 17. J 

The baptism of Christ is next in order. This is 
found on pag-es 12-14. You say: "Christ's bap- 
tism was his initiation into his priestly office; we 
cannot b^ priests." Here you disagree with the 
apostles. Christ was not priest on earth, therefore 
his baptism was not an "initiation into his priestly 
office." "If he [Christ] were on earth, he would 
not be a priest at all, seeing- there are those who 
offer the gifts according- to the law." (Heb. 8:4, 
R. V.) "We" are priests. "He made us to be a 
king*dom, to be priests unto his God and Father." 
■Rev. 1:6, R. V.) How do you harmonize your 
statements with thes- scriptures? Do you not 
think vou should retrace your steps and the next 
t n wars correct your teaching"? 



\N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 1 78 

Again: "Some say we are baptized for the remis- 
sion of sins." Peter said this. "Then Peter said 
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." ^ Acts 2:38. ) Do you think, he told the 
truth? Then why do you not baptize "for the re- 
mission of sins?" But you say: "Christ was not 
baptized for that purpose." That is true. He was 
baptized to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3: 
15) —that is, to do right. Righteousness is right 
doing. So we. to do right, must be baptized, too. 
We are to be baptized "for the remission of sins." 
Our duty is to "fear God, and keep his command- 
ments." (Eccles. 12:13.) Hence, to do right, we 
must be baptized, and that, too "for the remission of 
sins." Christ said: "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall 
be damned." (Mark 16:16.) Ananias said to Siul 
of Tarsus: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, callingon the 
name of the Lord." (Acts 22:160 "And all the 
people that heard him, and the publicans, justified 
God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But 
the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the couns-1 of 
God against themselves, being not baptized of him." 
(Luke 7:29,30.) "And hereby we do know that we 
know him, if we keep his commandments. He that 
saith, I know him, and keepeth not his command- 
ments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But 
whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love 
of Gj6. perfected: hereby know we that we are in 



17 C < AN INTEKESTING COKKESPONDENCh 

hirn." ^John 2:3-5. ' Then it is safe to be baptized, 
and that, too, "for the remission of sins." 

Again, you say: ' Those who are so anxious to 
follow Christ should follow the example of his 
parents and have their children baptized, and there- 
by recognize them as members of his king-dom in 
infancy." Here you would have the reader believe 
that Christ's parents had him baptized in infancy, 
thereby leaving c.n example of infant baptism. A 
few lines preceding this quotation you say: "Christ 
was baptized at thirty years of ag-e." If parents 
"should have their children baptized, and thereby 
recognize them as members of his kingdom in in- 
fancy/' then why did you tell me in one of your 
letters that "we do not recognize them as members 
of the church?" This is strong evidence, indeed, 
that you have studied "the substance of this book" 
well while "delivering it at various times and 
places for the past ten years." Do you not think 
so? The Presiding Elder took the position that 
the infant should be baptized because it is in the 
kingdom. It is an evident fact that you or the 
Presiding Elder have not studied this question 
very well "during the past ten years." Which one 
is it? 

You ask: "What tailor would cut one piece of a 
garment by a pattern and the other by guess?" 
I answer: The Methodist "tailor." When a Meth- 
odist preacher baptizes an adult by immersion, he 
has "cut one piece" by the "pattern" as found in 
Rom. 6:4 and Col. 2:12; but when he practices in- 
fant baptism or sprinkling, he "cuts the other by 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 180 

g-uess." If this is not true, then will you produce 
the scripture which shows the time when and the 
place where Christ or the .apostles authorized or 
practiced infant baptism or sprinkling-? Produce 
the "pattern," please. 

Why Methodists prefer affusion is next in order. 
This is found on pag-es 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Your 
first reason is that it "is much more convenient." 
You then add: "We would not chang-e the command- 
ment of God for convenience; but where there is 
neither command nor example, then we are wholly 
justified in taking- the most convenient mode. " How 
can there be different modes "where there is neither 
command nor example?" This needs some explana- 
tion. The New Testament is our authority. If 
there is no authority in the New Testament for 
either sprinkling- or immersion, then, instead of 
being- "wholly justified in taking-. the most conven- 
ient mode," you are condemned for taking- either, 
f rom . the fact that Paul says: "Learn not to g-o 
beyond the thing's which are written." (lCor. 4:6, 
R. V.) 

But have we any examples of immersion and 
sprinkling-? If so, your above reason falls to the 
ground. In your conclusion on pag-es 23, 24, in 
speaking- of immersion and sprinkling-, you say: "If 
performed by immersion, one may be reminded of 
John the Baptist, preaching- and baptizing- by the 
Jordan, preparing- the people for the reception of 
the Messiah; or of the Christ, submitting- to this 
ordinance to fulfill all rig-hteousness, when God the 
Father spoke those words of approval of his Son, 



18 1 \N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

and the Holy Ghost descended in the form of the 
most innocent of all living- creatures. You may 
think of that treasurer of the Ethiopian queen, 
listening- to the gospel as he drove along- the way, 
stopping- his chariot by 'a certain water,' receiving- 
baptism at the hands of Philip, who was caught 
away, by the Spirit of the Lord, that the eunuch 
saw him no more. If performed by affusion, you 
may catch the spirit of that great revival at Pen- 
tecost, and the three thousand who were added to 
the church when Christian baptism was first ad- 
ministered; or of that man who became the greatest 
of all apostles, and the most wonderful of all hu- 
man characters, stricken with blindness on his way 
to Damascus, praying- to God for three days, hear- 
ing- the voice of Ananias bringing- him the promise 
of the Lord, see the scales fall from his eyes, and 
reverently receive the ordinance of baptism. Be- 
hold Peter preaching- to the house of Cornelius, 
see the Holy Ghost fall on them, hear the apostle 
calling- for water with which to baptize the first 
Gentile converts to Christianity. Hear the voices 
of Paul and Silas as they are praying and singing 
in Philippi's jail at midnight hour, see that trem- 
bling jailer falling before them inquiring: 'What 
must I do to be saved?' Paul strikes the keynote 
of salvation in his reply: 'Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ,-and thou shalt be saved.' The same 
hour of the Wight this believing prison keeper rep- 
resented his '-'cleansing* and confessed his faith bv 
receiving holy baptism." 

Here you would have your readers believe that 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 182 

John practiced immersion, and that Christ and the 
eunuch were immersed, and that the three thousand, 
Paul, Cornelius, and the jailer were sprinkled. If 
in this you are correct, then it follows that we have 
examples for both immersion and sprinkling-; and 
therefore you contradict yourself when you say: 
"Where there is neither command nor example, we 
are wholly justified in taking- the most convenient 
mode." In one statement you teach that there is 
neither command nor example for either practice, 
and in the next you introduce examples trying- to 
estab ish both practices. Which statement shall 
we believe? We cannot believe both, for they are 
contradictory. 

But if the three thousand, Cornelius, and the jailer 
were sprinkled, it follows that affusion can be proven; 
and therefore you contradict your statement on pag-e 
16, which is: "It is a mistake to assert that affusion 
can be proven." In your Preface you say: "The 
substance of this book has been used in a sermon 
delivered at various times and places for the past 
ten years." I advise you as a friend and one who 
is interested in your future welfare to cut out both 
the "substance" and "sermon," call in and burn the 
tract. I would not preach such contradictions and 
publish them for the world to read. You oug-ht to 
know that the people who are not blinded with 
sectarianism can see them. 

Your second reason is: "Affusion is practicable 
at nil times and under all circumstances." You 
then add: "During- a g-eneration there has been two 
months of weather several different times in Middle 



183 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

Tennessee when no one could have been immersed, 
in a river, with safety either to the candidate or the 
administrator." This last statement is false. 
There has never been a time since baptism was 
commanded that it would be unsafe to baptize in 
eddy water of the rivers of Tennessee or in any 
other State. True, there are places in the rivers 
during- high waters which it would be imprudent 
for one to select in which to be baptized, and this 
is true when the rivers are at their lowest, and it 
was. also true in the days of Christ and the apostles; 
but no one subject to the gospel call or competent 
to keep out of the insane asylum would select such 
a place in which to be immersed, either in high- 
water or low- water time. He who has no better 
judgment than to select such a place in which to be 
immersed, either in time of high or low water, needs 
no baptism. He has a through ticket to heaven; 
and I am not real sure but that he who would try 
to justify sprinkling by such an argument is in the 
same boat. The rivers never get so high but that 
there are plenty of places affording eddy water 
sufficient to immerse people with perfect safety. 

You say: "Some years ago we heard a preacher 
make this statement: 'If a .man honestly confesses 
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and is on his 
way to the creek to be baptized in obedience to the 
gospel, you cannot kill him with a Winchester 
rifle.'" Here is what the Book says: "He came 
unto his own, and his own received him not. But 
as many as received him, to them gave he power to 
become the sons of God, even to them that believe 



A.W INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. L84 

on his name." (John 1:11, 12.) When Jesus gives 
one the power to do a thing-, and he g-oes immedi- 
ately and obeys, as did the jailer, you need not fear 
the "Winchester rifle." "O ye of little faith!" 
(Matt. 6:30.) 

The colored woman at Woodbury, Tennessee, 
which you introduce, seems to be very higm authority 
with you relative to sprinkling-. I would regret to 
preach a doctrine that would necessitate setting- 
aside the testimony of Christ and the apostles and 
introdncing- the testimony of a colored woman to 
prove it. But her testimony is just as strong- as 
any you can introduce favoring- affusion. Paul 
says: "Therefore we are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death: that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so 
we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6: 
4.) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye 
are risen with him throug-h the faith of the opera- 
tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead." 
(Col. 2:12.) What did the colored woman say? 
" 'Guess we will have to sprinkle 'em till 
spring-, and den we, 11 'mus 'em.' " What is your 
conclusion? "If sprinkling- will do until spring-, 
it will be sufficient for all the time." A fine 
premise for such a conclusion, indeed! But no 
wonder you appeal to the colored woman, a descend- 
ant of Africa, for authority for sprinkling-, when it 
is said the practice beg-an in Africa. "The ad- 
ministration of baptism by sprinkling- was first in- 
vented in Africa in the third century in favor of 
clinics or bed-riddea people. But even African 



1S5 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

Catholics, the least enlightened and the most de- 
praved of all Catholics, derided it and reputed it 
no baptism." (Robinson's History.) 

You say: "The principle of changing from a 
river to a pool, or a prepared place, is about the 
same as changing from immersion to affusion." 
This is a g-ross mistake. In one the command of 
God is changed, and in -the other it is not. Wheth- 
er you immerse in a river, a pool, or a baptistery. 
in each case you do what the Lord says — you im- 
merse — the candidate goes ''clown into the water,' 1 
is "buried," and comes ''up out of the water;" but 
when you change from immersion to sprinkling, 
you do what the Lord never commanded and no in- 
« - :ed man practiced. Hence you change the com- 
.__ ad of God. 

Your third reason is: ''So many things happen, 
when people are immersed, that will produce laugh- 
ter and break the solemnity of the occasion." He 
who admits, as you have, that the Lord was im- 
mersed and that it is "a mistake to assert that af- 
fusion can be proven," and then introduce such to 
justify affusion, needs to be pitied indeed. 

Your fourth reason is: "The weight of Bible ev- 
idence favors affusion. While no mode can be es- 
tablished, the stronger evidence is on the side of 
affusion. The Methodist Church, therefore, ac- 
cepts any mode." In your conclusion, as already 
seen, you introduce Christ and the eunuch as exam- 
ples of immersion, and the three thousand, Paul, 
Cornelius, and the jailer as examples of affusion. 
Here, if you are correct, you establish both modes, 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. L86 

and, therefore, contradict the assertion that "no 
mode can be established." If your conclusion is 
true, 3'our statement and argument are false. If 
your statement and arg-ument are true, then your 
conclusion is false. Will you tell us which is cor- 
rect? 

You say: "The word 'immerse' or any word 
meaning- the same thing- is not used in the Scrip- 
tures." Then why did you, in your conclusion, in- 
troduce John as one who practiced immersion, and 
Christ and the eunuch as examples of immersion? 
Here, as above, you contradict yourself. It is a 
fact that there are three different English transla- 
tions of the New Testament that give "immerse" 
instead of the word "baptize," and a faithful trans- 
lation would use the word "immerse," and not the 
word "baptize." "Malcomb's Bible Dictionary, New 
Edition," of 1848, page 31, after defining "baptize" 
to "immerse," says: "Had the word been translated 
into plain English, there would now perhaps be no 
controversy on the mode of baptism." 

You say: "It is a mistake to assert that affusion 
can be proven." A few lines below you state: "It 
is inconsistent to agree th^t the Bible teaches a cer- 
tain mode and then practice other modes." Yes, 
and "it is inconsistent" to say, "It is;a mistake to 
assert that affusion can be proven," and then prac- 
tice it. 

After referring to the "Discipline" relative to bap- 
tism, you say: "Many Methodists will be surprised 
to know that our 'Discipline' requires a minister to 
immerse an infant if its parents require it." Yes, 



> 7 AM INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

and many of them will be surprised to know that 
infant baptism is not authorized by the word of the 
Lord. It is a little strangle you go to the M Discipline" 
to prove the Methodist doctrine, if said doctrir.r s 
in the Bible. The phrase "our 'Discipline* " does 
not include the Bible. This quotation proves my 
charge that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
is guided by the "Discipline," and not the Bible. 
Y;ur a-atuinity :":: infant baptism ::zr> fro in t'ue 
"Discipline, " and not from the Bible. If this charge 
is not true, then why do you quote the "Discipline" 
as your authority, and not the Bible? If the 
t'narg-r is n:t true, tii-m Trill t:u pro-it; :± :lt± s:r:p- 
ture that shows the time when and the place where 
Christ or the apostles authorized or practiced in- 
fant baptism? 

On pag^e 17 you say: "John baptized ' with water.* 
All immersionists baptize in water. Therefore, 
John did not immerse." In your conclusion, page 23 
you introduce John as one who practiced immer- 
sion. Harmonize the two positions, please. But I 
would remind you of the fact that the American 
Revised Version takes the expression "with water" 
'- — .■- fr ;a you by r-rnitring- i: "in tl^:."' Ma::. 

iT:u say: "Manner's account :•: thr baptism of 
Christ says: 'And Jesus, Trbtn he was baptized- 
TTrn: smaigmtTrav up on: of the "rrat-rr.'" A ftT- 
lines further on you add: "Many people of all 
churches seem to have gotten the idea that the 
meaning of tais scripture is expressed in words like 
these: As John lifted up Jesus out of the water, he 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 188 

saw the Heavens open. By analysis it is clearly 
seen that no such meaning* was intended." It 
seems that you had the same idea when you wrote 
your conclusion in your tract and introduced John 
as practicing- immersion and Christ as an example 
of one immersed. 

On pag-es 17 and 18 you say: "The baptism of 
the eunuch is the only case found in Acts where 
there is even an intimation of immersion. Philip 
and the eunuch went down into the water and came 
up out of the water. A man may do both these 
and then not be immersed. Nothing- is said of the 
eunuch that is not said of Philip. If the eunuch 
was immersed, then Philip was also immersed." 
These are brig-ht thoughts, indeed, coming- from a 
logician, and one who has been delivering- "the 
substance of this book in a sermon at various times 
and places for the past ten years." If I had a 
schoolboy in a class that could not g-et up his first 
speech with more reason in it than there is in 
the above quotation, I would be tempted to send him 
home to his mother. Yes, there is something- 
said of the eunuch that is not said of Philip. 
The eunuch was baptized. The Book says: 
"He baptized him." Do you ask how I know the 
eunuch was the one baptized? I reply, because he 
was the one who wanted to be baptized — the one 
that needed it — the one that asked for it. But you 
say: "If the eunuch was immersed, then Philip was 
also immersed." Well, I g-uess they were both im- 
mersed, then; for in your conclusion in your tract you 
introduce the baptism of the eunuch as one example 



L8V AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

of immersion. Suppose I say: "If the eunuch was 
sprinkled, then Philip was also sprinkled. Noth- 
ing is said of the eunuch that is not said of Philip." 
You would think this was a fine argument against 
sprinkling, would you not? 

You ask: "If the position taken in this book 
should be established in the minds of all people, 
what would be the result?" You answer: "It would 
do away with immersion entirely." Yes, notwith- 
standing the fact that Paul says: "We are buried 
with him in baptism." Not only would "it do 
away with immersion," but affusion also, for you 
say: "It is a mistake to assert that affusion can be 
proven." In one of your letters you say: "I can 
prove everything I practice by the Bible to my sat- 
isfaction." How can you prove affusion by the 
Bible when "it is a mistake to assert that affusion 
can be proven?" 

Again: "It is a well-known rule of argument that 
the burden of proof must be made by the affirma- 
tive. The immersionist has the affirmative of this 
question. If he cannot make positive proof, then 
his theory fails without any argument from the neg- 
ative." (Page 18.) As far as proving immersion 
is concerned, immersionists have a very easy task. 
Paul says: "Therefore we are buried with him 
by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life." (Rom. 
6:4.) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the op- 
eration of God, who hath raised him from the 



AN INTERESTING COKKESPONDlXNCK. 190 

dead." (Col. 2:12.) This is proof enough; but if 
you desire other evidence, I introduce the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. This church practices 
immersion and admits that immersion is scriptural 
baptism. 

It is true that the burden of proof rests upon the 
affirmative, and it is a well-known fact that "if he 
cannot make positive proof, then his theory fails 
without any argument from the negative." It is 
also a well-known fact that when one practices any- 
thing-, then he is the affirmative and should prove 
his practice. You practice sprinkling and infant 
baptism, and therefore you arc the affirmative on 
these propositions. The burden of proof rests upon 
you, and "if" you "cannot make positive proof," 
then your "theory fails without any argument 
from the negative." Will you please produce the 
scripture which shows the time when and the place 
where Christ or the apostles authorized or practiced 
sprinkling'-and infant baptism? If you fail to do 
this, then your "theory fails without any argument 
from the negative," according to your admission. 
Here I would remind you of the fact that you have 
admitted that "it is a mistake to assert that affu- 
sion can be proven." 

On page 20 you say: "This book will make the 
mode of baptism very clear to some of those who 
believe in affusion. It will instruct those who have 
not investigated the subject, and help those who 
are in doubt." How could it be otherwise, when 
you admit that "it is a mistake to assert that affu- 
sion can be proven," and (on page 19) "it is a rare 



1^1 AN INTERESTING COKKES PONDENCE. 

thing- to hear any one argue that immersion is not 
baptism." also admit that your "Discipline" re- 
quires you to immerse infants if their parents re- 
quest it? I am inclined to think that this discus- 
sion will turn on some light. What do you think 
about it? 

On page 20 you say: "These proselyting immer- 
sionists are very presumptuous and very persistent. 
They often argue with and propose to teach people 
who know a great deal more about the subject 
than they do themselves." If this is true, I would 
hate to see the argument they put up. if the talent 
of the affusionist represented in this discussion is 
the standard. I suppose this talent is standard in 
Tennessee, since it has all been tried from the low- 
est to the highest. 

You continue: "They [immersionists] are given 
to making- propositions to do certain thing's, and 
offering- rewards if certain doctrines can be proven 
by the Scriptures. Thev will propose to leave their 
church and join another, or will offer a certain 
sum of money, if some one will show them sprin- 
kling- in the Bible. It is alwavs safe to make such 
propositions on either side of this subject." Yes. 
I have had a ten-dollar proposition running all 
throug-h this discussion for one scripture which 
shows the time when and the place where Christ or 
the apostles authorized or practiced infant baptism. 
but the scripture has not been introduced. I think 
4 'it is alwavs safe" on mv side "to make such a 
proposition." But what about your vide? You 
say: "It is safe on either side." Then why do you 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 192 

refuse to put that one thousand dollars in bank? 

The quotation from "The Theological Compend" 
is a very foolish and weak one, since the author 
has the scholarship of the world against him. 
This is sufficient. 

I have now reviewed jour tract, and must say 
that it is one of the weakest things I ever read. I 
feel satisfied that since reading this review you re- 
gret having published it. Do not publish and cir- 
late any more of them. It will be no credit to you. 
I am honest in this and advise you as a friend. 

I call attention to the fact that you failed to an- 
swer a few questions. My friend introduced two 
translations of the New Testament which give the 
words "immersing" and "immersed," and then 
asked: "Will Mr. Nackles produce one translation 
which g'ives 'sprinkling-' or 'pouring' in these scrip- 
tures?" 

Why did you fail to produce the scripture that 
shows the time when anji the place where Christ or 
the apostles indikectly authorized infant baptism? 
In this I am treating you better than you think 
Dr. Feist was treated. I am willing to give you a 
new hearing and from a different view, but it seems 
you will not take advantage of the opportunity. 

If Christ did not give the Lord's Supper to the 
family of God when he instituted it, then to whom 
did he give it? Did he give it to the family of the 
evil one? 

It is not my desire to "catch a fellow napping;" 
so wake up and tell us whether the narrow road 
ljadinjr to heaven leads through the Methodist 



193 A.N CNTlSRKSTING corkicspond:cnch. 

Episcopal Church, South. If it does, since baptism 
is the door into the church, then tell us how a re- 
sponsible person can reach heaven without being- 
baptized and going- through the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South? If the narrow road does not lead 
through said church, then is not said church in the 
broad road? If a responsible person can reach 
heaven without going- through the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, then is not said church non- 
essential? Please answer these questions and 
oblige. Your friend, 

(Miss) Noea Yount. 
[As this letter received no reply for quite a while. 
Miss Yount decided that Mr. Nackles had declined 
further discussion, hence pays her respects to his 
answer to her reasons for leaving the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, in her next. Mr. Nackles 
replied to these reasons in three articles; according- 
ly Miss Yount replied to them in the order in which 
they came. Miss Yount's reasons for leaving the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are found in 
"Part Fourth," page 55.— Ed.] 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Term., February 11, 1907. — Miss 
Nora Yount, Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Dear Madam: 
Here is my answer to your reasons for leaving- the 
Methodist Church. Your published letters, tog-eth- 
er with the introduction at the beginning-, impress 
me that }^ou are not the real author of the letters. 
It seems that these thing's have been sug-g-ested to 
you by another, and you have accepted them with- 
out much investigation. I am very much surprised 
that you have let these thing-s g*o into print with so 
many statements which the facts do not justify. 
Doubtless neither you nor your helper expected 
these letters to be subjected to critical examination. 

It is very unwise to rush into print to expose 
every person, church, and teaching- with which you 
do not believe, and to defend every theory which 
you may have accepted. Thing's said and done 
may be forg-otten; but thing-s written — especially 
those published — are public property, and are likely 
to be remembered a year or five years, hence you 
may wish you had never published these letters. 
Thing-s will look differently then to what they do 
now. When you are entirely separated from the 
influence that has moved you, and come in contact 
with some sweet-spirited Christian people who may 
not believe your doctrine, you may feel that you 
have made a mistake. You may never acknowledg-e 
it, but remember my words and /see if you do not 
feel that way. These letters of mine are very 
plain, but thev are written in the best of spirit. 



I H N I :- I BST1 M :OKKESPONDEN 

I have no purpose only to help you and defend the 
truth. 

I have been studying these questions, discussing 
them, and writing about them for vear>. These 
are not rash conclusions formulated in a 
There is not a point mentioned in any of your 1c : ters 
that I have not gone over many times. I read the 
Xr w Testament through at the age of ten, and 
three times before twenty. I joined the Methodists 
at eleven, memorized all the catechism at thirteen, 
and passed a good examination on th- 'Discipline" 
at eighteen. About the age of twenty I attended a 
meeting held by a preacher of the church of Christ. 
The meeting made an impression on me. After 
that I laid aside my "Discipline," my catecl::-n. 
and my preconceived opinions, as far as I could, for 
a time, and carefully studied the New Testament 
for sis months to see if Methodist doctrines are 
well founded in the Scrip ture^ My conclusion was 
that Methodist doctrines are more reasonable, more 
liberal, and more biblical than the doctrines of any 
church of which I have any knowledge. The more 
I have studied history, theology, and the Bible, the 
more thoroughly have I been convinced of the truth 
of that conclusion. 

You have fallen into several errc ■:> 

1. You are insisting on a literal interpret a tic: 
the Bible for what it says without explanation. I 
can prove anything by that method of reasoning. 

Z. Your theory forces all people to believe the 
same doctrines, belong to the same church, and do 
the same things in the same wav, to be Christians. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE L96 

3. You indicate a purpose to build up a church of 
Christ in your community, and make an effort to 
proselyte your family and friends into your newly 
accepted sect and faith. 

Doubtless your parents have done a great deal 
more for you than all other people. The Methodist 
Church has done much to help you form the Chris- 
tian character and make the good reputation which 
you enjoy to-day. Are you really correct when you 
call a man your "friend" who teaches you doctrines 
that turn you against the parents that reared you, 
the church that taught you, and the ministry that 
preached the gospel to you from your earliest day? 
Do you honestly believe that opinions about infant 
baptism, sprinkling-, and such thing's, are more impor- 
tant than the keeping - of the fifth commandment, 
living- a rig-hteous life, and building- a Christian 
character? You may call this an appeal to senti- 
ment. And such it is; but the sentiment is founded 
on some of the greatest principles God has ever given 
to man. If these things seem harsh or unkind, 
apply the principles of the Golden Rule. Would 
you commend me for going into a community where 
the people belong to the church of Christ and prose- 
lyting them into the Methodist Church? 

I quote from your letter: "From my cradle till 
about one year ago I had been taught Methodism. 
I had heard nothing but sectarianism taught. I 
was a full-blooded Methodist, and gave every evi- 
dence of the same, and I thought any doctrine was 
heresy which did not agree with the doctrine of my 
favored church." You were mistaken about being 



L97 \N ERTBKBSTlMla CORRESPONDENCE 

a *• full-blooded Methodist " The Methodist Church 
and ministry never taug-ht such a theory as that. Nc 

/.-blooded Methodist" believes that every doc- 
trine is heresy which does not agree with the doc- 
trine of his church. Webster's Unabridg-ed Diction- 
ary says: "^Heresy 1 — A fundamental error in re- 
ligion, or an error of opinion respecting- some fun- 
damental doctrine of religion." Methodists do not 
call differences of opinion about baptism and the 
^wmrinnion heresy, rhey are not fundamental. 
Denial of the divinitv of Christ would be her^s" 
That is a fundamental doctrine. ' Sr::.Lrianism" 
was all that you had heard taug-ht. " 'Sectarian- 
ism — The lisposition tc lissent from the established 
church or ^re^.irinant religion, and to form new 
sects. 11 Webster. Methodism is the predominant 
religion of this country. So you are the sectarian. 
Yoa have left us and joined a sect. There is more 
sectarianism in the church of Christ than any other 
Protestant church. The Methodists teach less sec- 
tarianism than anv other people. Sectarianism is 
usually understood to mean emphasizing- the pecu- 
liar doctrine of denominations. There is more sec- 
tarianism in your twentv-one reasons for leaving- the 
Methodist Church than you would likely hear 

_:hed in a Methodist pulpit in ten years. Meth- 
odists usually preach a practical gospel and give 
little attention to disputed doctrines. The people 
of the church of Christ usuallv claim that they do 
not belong- to a denomination, but their practice 
proves them a denomination beyond question. The 
real truth seems to be that durire the past year you 



A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 198 

have been learning- more denominationalism and sec- 
tarianism than you had ever heard before. It is 
very strang-e that a person who is "above an average 
in intellect," and who should go on for so many 
years believing- all the doctrines of Methodism and 
counting- everything- else "heresy," would in so short 
a time find out that she was altogether mistaken, 
and that Methodist doctrine itself is heresy from 
start to finish. Would you ever have made the dis- 
covery if some apostle of controversy had not come 
along- to show you the way? 

In my next letter I will take up your numbered 
reasons for leaving- the Methodist Church and dis- 
cuss them item by item. 

Yours fraternally, Geo. W. Nackxes. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., August 26, 1907.— Mr. 
Geo. W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
It has been more than a month since, I mailed you 
my last. As I have received no reply to mine of 
July 15, and since yon have had abundant time to 
reply, I reach the conclusion that you do not aim to 
reply, and therefore I beg-in my reply to your criti- 
cism of my reasons for leaving- the Methodist faith. 
There are three articles of this criticism. Accord- 
ingly I write three, replying to yours in order. I sug- 
gest that you deal with them as one message in your 
reply, so as to avoid confusion in our correspondence. 
Yours of February 11 is first in order. 

You may be surprised at my letting the* "Interest- 
ing Correspondence" go into print, but I was so re- 
joiced over the fact that I had turned from darkness 
to light, and from the power of Satan unto Gcd, that 
I could not help telling' it to others, that they, too, 
might see the error of their way and be saved. You 
are no more surprised at my going into print with 
the matter than I was at the Methodist force at 
headquarters not being able to defend their doctrine. 

Yes, I expected the letters to be subjected to "criti- 
cal examination, " and this is why I sent them to head- 
quarters in the Methodist Church, South. But I was 
surprised to rind the critics, from the circuit rider 
in his humble cottage to the bishop on his throne, 
unable to meet the arguments. 

Since you seem to be dissatisfied with the effort 
of these men and set yourself up as a critic, will 



AN INTER EST! KG CORRESPONDENCE. 200 

you point out the "so many statements which the 
facts do not justify" — infant baptism, for instance? 

Where is your Bible authority for the "Cate- 
chism" and "Discipline?" Where did Christ or the 
apostles authorize such? The Bible is the book to 
study; and had you studied and memorized it, and 
obeyed the same, instead of studying-, memorizing, 
and obeying the "Catechism" and "Discipline," you 
would not have joined the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, neither would you have become a 
Methodist. You would have gone into the church 
of Christ and would have been nothing but a Chris- 
tian. Obedience to the gospel puts people into the 
church of Christ, and not the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Obedience to the gospel makes 
Christians, and not Methodists. Studying and 
obeying the "Catechism" and the "Discipline" pro- 
duces Methodists and puts people into the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, or some other human in- 
stitution. 

Your returning to your "Catechism," "Disci- 
pline," and preconceived opinions, after studying the 
New Testament for a while, is to some extent de- 
scribed in the Bible. We read of a certain animal 
returning to her wallowing in the mire. (2 Pet. 
2:22.) Jesus tells us about the good seed falling 
in stony places and the plant withering. (Matt. 
13:3-6.) 

You think it is an error to take the Bible for 
what it says, and that you can prove anything by 
such a method. In your tract on baptism, page 16, 



20 1 \N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

yon say: "It is a mistake to assert that affusion can 
be proven." Please harmonize these statements or 
make your word good by proving- affusion "by such 
a method." 

It is God's "theory" if it should be called a 
ires ...11 people to believe 
doctrine, belong- to the same church, and 
do the same things in the same way to be Chris- 
tians. God has but one way. "I will give them 
one heart, and one way." Jer. 32:39. "Strait 
Ls the gate, and narrow is the way. which leaceth 
unto life, and few there be that rind it." Matt. 7: 
14.) "These men are the servants of the most 
high God. wl:::l: show •/.■_::■:• us \:.z wav of salva- 
: ..:." Actsl6:17. "Having- therefore, brethren. 
>ldness %o enter into the holiest by the blood 
s, by a new and living- way. which he hath con- 
rated for us. through the veil, that is to say. 
bis desh." (Heb. 10:19.20. "Which have tor- 
si a ken the rig-ht way." [2 Pet. 2:15. ) All the early 
Hged to one fold because of the fact 
that there was but on: for them to belong- to. 
"There shall be one fold, and one shepherd." 
John 10:16. Gd:1 has bu: one family, and ail hi> 
children are in his family. "But now hath God 
set the members ecery aae of them in the body. a> 
it bath pleased him." I Cor. 12: IS. The saint: 
:ess that makes one a Christian puts him into 
the church. There is bu: one ioctriue to brl:: . 

is the 1 :::neof Christ; and all should pre 
the same thin^. and. therefore ndve no diviMi as. 
"Now I beseech vou. brethren, the name of our 



AN INTK-KESTING COKKESi-OA : DEJNCK 202 

Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, 
and that there be no divisions among- you; but that 
ye be perfectly joined tog-ether in the same mind 
and in the same judg-ment." (1 Cor. 1: 10.) Do 
you read in the New Testament about any one be- 
lieving- the Methodist doctrine or belonging- to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South? Can you 
produce a scripture that shows where any one was 
a Christian outside of the church of Christ or be- 
longed to any religious institution except the church 
of God? 

Yes, it is my intention to have a meeting- held in 
my neighborhood. I aim to have the g'ospel preached 
here. Why not? I never heard a Methodist 
preacher tell a sinner what to do to be saved- 
Since Methodist preachers never told the sinners of 
this community what to do to be saved, I think it is 
my duty to have it done. I do not expect to prose- 
lyte any one, unless preaching- the g'ospel and per- 
suading- people to be simply Christians and to be- 
long - to nothing- but the church of Christ is prose- 
lyting*. Do you think preaching- the g-ospel without 
addition or subtraction, and persuading- people to 
abandon human institutions, doctrines, and com- 
mandments of men, and to accept the church, doc- 
trine, and commandments of God, would be prose- 
lyting-? [The above-named meeting- was held, with 
g-ood results. — Ed.] 

I call any one who leads me out of darkness into 
light my friend. As to my faith in the different 
opinions relative to infant baptism, sprinkling - , and 
such thing's, it will suffice to say that I have set 



203 \N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

aside the different opinions reg-arding these and ac- 
cepted the teaching of the New Testament. This 
is what you should do. 

Yes, you and all other Methodist preachers are at 
liberty to go into a congregation of Christians and 
make Methodists of them. The field is open and 
free. But you would be as much afraid of going" 
into a congregation of this kind as you would be of 
putting a rattlesnake into your bosom. I believe 
you would be afraid to meet a Christian preacher 
in public debate here at my home. 

I see no need of your amazement over the fact 
that I learned "the way of the Lord more perfect- 
ly" and that Methodism is heresy in so short a 
time. Saul of Tarsus, who became Paul the apostle, 
made the trip quicker than I did. He learned the 
way of the Lord and that the sect to which he be- 
longed taught heresy inside of three days. You 
should read j^our Bible more and theology less. 

Heresy and sectarianism come next. What is 
it? " 'Heresy' — {1) An opinion held in opposition 
to the established or commonly received doctrine, 
and tending to promote a division or party, as in 
politics, literature, philosophy, etc.; — usually, but 
not necessarily, said in reproach. (2) Religious opin- 
ion opposed to the authorized doctrinal standards of 
any particular church, especially when tending to 
promote schism or separation; lack of orthodox or 
sound belief; rejection of, or erroneous belief in re- 
gard to, some fundamental religious doctrine or 
truth; heterodoxy. (3) An offense against Chris- 
tianity, consisting in a denial of some essential 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 204 

doctiine, which denial is publicly avowed, and ob- 
stinately maintained." (Webster.) 

According- to Webster, the doctrine of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, is heresy, because 
it does not agree with the teaching- of the New 
Testament and in many instances contradicts Christ 
and the apostles. Christ tells us to go teach and 
to baptize the taught. (Matt. 28: 19,20.) In in- 
fant baptism, Methodist doctrine is baptize without 
the teaching-. Peter tells us that baptism is ''for 
the remission of sins." (Acts 2: 38.) Methodists 
tell us that baptism is because of the remission of 
sins. Ananias said to Saul: "Arise, and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling- on the name 
of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) Methodist teaching- 
is: Arise, and be baptized because your sins have 
been washed away. Peter says: "Baptism doth 
also now save us." (1 ^et. 3:21.) Methodists tell 
us that baptism never did, does not, cannot, and 
never will save any one. 

Methodism is "an offense ag-ainst Christianit}', 
consisting- in a denial of some essential doctrine," 
and, therefore, heresy. It denies the Bible as its 
only rule of faith and practice and accepts a man- 
made "Catechism" and "Discipline," claiming- it 
can prove anything- by taking- the Bible without 
comment, thereby admitting- that infidels and all 
that defile and maketh a lie will enter into and 
enjoy heaven. 

Not only is this true, but its tendency is to pro- 
mote division and its party. When the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, and her doctrine were ush- 



205 AN LNTBKKSTING CUKKKSPONDKNCH 

ered into existence, it was only a new division and 
party unknown to the New Testament and added to 
the many divisions and parties already in existence. 

" 'Sectarianism' — The qualit} T or character of a 
sectarian; devotion to the interests of a party; excess 
of partisan or denominational zeal; adherence to a 
separate church organization." ^Webster.) 

Webster gives the following- under synonym of 
heretic: "A heretic is one whose errors are doc- 
trinal, and usually of a malignant character, tend- 
ing to subvert the true faith. A schismatic is 
one who creates a schism, or division in the church, 
on points of faith, discipline, practice, etc., usually 
for the sake of personal aggrandizement. A sec- 
tarian is one who originates or is an ardent adher- 
ent and advocate of a sect, or distinct organization, 
which separates from the main bod} 7 of believers." 

A Methodist preacher and his church is all this. 
He is a heretic because his doctrine tends to subvert 
the true faith. He persuades people to believe 
that baptism has nothing to do with saving them; 
that it is because of the remission of sins; that one is 
justified by faith only, which leaves out repentance. 
He is a schismatic because he creates division by 
setting aside tht Bible ^s his only rule of faith and 
practice and accepting a man-made ''Catechism" 
and "Discipline." He is a sectarian because he 
"promotes a sect, or distinct, organization, which 
separates from the main body of believers. " Meth- 
odists admit that the church of God is the main 
body of believers and that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, is only a branch church. This sep- 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 206 

arates them from the true church or "main body 
of believers."' 

What is a sect? "Those following a particular 
leader or authority, or attached to a certain opinion; 
a company or set having a common beliei or allegi- 
ance distinct from others; in religion, the believers 
in a particular creed, or upholders of a particular 
practice; especially, in modern times, a party dis- 
senting from an established church; a denomina- 
tion; in philosophy, the disciples of a particular 
master; a school; in society and the State, an order, 
rank, class, or party." (Webster.) 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is a 
sect because it is a party cut off. In yours of 
February 15 you admit that the churcii to which 
you belong is a denomination. In speaking of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, you say: "They are two 
separate and distinct denominations." The Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, is a block off the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, and, therefore, is a 
sect. But you say that both "are two separate and 
distinct deno.nin itions," and Webster sa} T s that a 
sect is a "religious denomination. " Thus, accord- 
ing to your admission and Webster, your own wit- 
ness, both the above-named denominations are sects. 
What need that I should offer further proof? But 
I offer another witness. 

The Roman Catholic Church is the mother of all 
sects. Mr. Green, a Methodist, and one who is 
trying- to help the Mithodist force in this discus- 
sion, i 1 a letter to me of January 21, says: "The 



207 AN INTERESTING COH KKSPC NDENCB. 

Methodists can trace their c.Hirch back into the 
Catholic Church." Here Mr. Green is rig-lit. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is a branch 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church; the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church is a branch of the Methodist 
Church; the Methodist Church is a daughter of the 
Episcopal Church; the Episcopal Church is a daugh- 
ter of the Roman Catholic Church; and the Roman 
Catholic Church is the great harlot having- so many 
children spoken of in Rev. 17: 1-8. 

Your friend, (Miss) Nora Yount. 

[The three articles containing the criticism by 
Mr. Nackles were all received before Miss Yount 
began her reply to same. Hence her references to 
and quotations from his letters following her re- 
plies as here published. — Ed.] 



LETTER FKOM THE PASTOK TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., February 15, 1907.— Miss 
Nora Yount, Goodlettsville, Tenn. — Dear Madam: 
You g-ave jour reasons for leaving- the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. You were not a member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, but of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South. They are two separate 
and distinct denominations. I will use the term 
"church of Christ," as you say that is the church 
you have entered. You g-ave twenty-one numbered 
reasons. I will write the number and the answer, 
supposing- you have the printed reasons for refer- 
ence. 

1. The church of Christ was not ordained of God 
nor sealed by the blood of Christ. The Bible makes 
no mention of such an institution. 

2. The Methodist Church does not teach that 
"one can be saved outside of the church as well as 
in it." One may be a Christian and g-et to heaven 
and not belong* to any denomination. But the 
church is a g-reat help to any person in living- the 
Christian life. 

3. Salvation is not in the Methodist Church, 
neither is it in the church of Christ. Salvation is 
in Christ himself. 

4. If Christ did not purchase the Methodist 
Church with his own blood, then you are lost. 
Your statement intimates that Christ only died for 
a part of the human family. You were once a 
Methodist. If Christ did not die for the Methodists, 
then you have no hope. 



20 u IN INTKKHSTING CORRESPONDENCE 

5. The church of Christ was set up long- since the 
apostles died. The Methodist Church was organ- 
ized in Baltimore, Maryland, on December 24, 1784 
The church of Christ was set up in the city of 
Nashville about 1*28. So the Methodist Church is 
a century nearer the days of the apostles than the 
church of Christ. 

6. The apostles did not belong; to the church of 
Christ. It did not exist in their day. The apostles 
were never baptized in water. They could not have 
been members of the church of Christ without bap- 
tism. 

7. The church of Christ teaches and practices 
thing-s not found in the Bible. Immersion and 
women taking- the communion are not found in the 
Bible. 

8. This is a mere assertion of an opinion, and 
needs no replv. 

9. The elders and teachers of the church of Christ 
contradict each other. Did you ever hear of the 
leaders of any church all agreeing - about every- 
thing-? In the citv of Nashville two or three of 
the churches of Christ have orgfans and societies. 
The other churches claim that such thing-s are not 
authorized by the Bible. The Gospel Advocate is 
very strong; in its opposition to organs and societies. 
Why is it that those brethren do not agree? Peter 
and Paul did not agree. (Gal. 2: 11-16.) Paul 
and Barnabas had a difference. (Acts 15: 36-41. 
"The contention was so sharp between them, that 
thev departed asunder one from the other." Bar- 
nabas had been Paul's best friend when he was in 



great need of help. (Acts 9: 26-28.) If Paul and 
Peter and Paul and Barnabas could not always 
agree, what do you expect of other people? 

10. The bishop is not the head of the Methodist 
Church. Christ is the spiritual head of all churches. 
The General Conference is the head of the visible 
Methodist Church. 

11. The preachers of the church of Christ always 
tell sinners to "repent, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins." But they usu;llv stop there, and do 
not add, as you did, "and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost. " If it was necessary for the 
converts to receive the "gift of the Holy Ghost" 
on the day of Pentecost, why is it not necessary 
now? Is it any greater sin to chang-e or omit the 
whole of a passag-e of scripture than it is to chang-e 
or omit a part of it? The preachers of the church 
of Christ have three theories about the Holy Ghost: 
(1) There is no Holy Ghost. (2) The baptism or 
gift of the Holy Ghost conies after water baptism. 
(3) The baptism or gift of the Holy Ghost ceased 
with the days of the apostles. These theories all 
contradict each other. I have heard a preacher of 
the church of Christ arg-ue that it is impossible for 
any man to receive the Holv Ghost in our day, and 
at the close of the meeting' invite people to come 
forward and confess that they "believe that Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God." Paul says: "No man 
can say that Jesus is the Lord, but bv the Holv 
Ghost." (1 Cor. 12:3.) Can you harmonize these? 

12. The church of Christ never has any "mourn- 



2ll AN INTKKKSTING COKKKSPONDKNCH. 

ers." They do not believe in "mourners." 

13. The church of Christ baptizes sinners with- 
out a "change of heart." Children do not need a 
change of heart, but adult sinners do. There is 
Bible teaching- for baptizing - infants; there is none 
for the baptism of sinners. It would be impossible 
to prove that the apostles ever baptized a sinner. 
Most of the members of the church of Christ do not 
believe in a change of heart. 

14. The Bible very clearly teaches two or more 
baptisms. "For John truly baptized with water; 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not 
many days hence." (Acts 1: 5.) 

15. A difference of opinion about baptism is not 
adding to or taking* from the word of the Lord. 
There is plenty of room for differences of opinion 
about such things. That is a very grave and dan- 
gerous accusation to bring against a church or a 
people. (See Rev. 22:18,19.) To him that add- 
eth, "God shall add unto him the plagues that are 
written in this book/' From him that taketh 
away, God shall take away his part out of the book 
of life." It is much more dangerous and a far 
greater sin to bring railing accusations against 
honest, sincere people than it is to believe an erro- 
neous doctrine. 

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with 
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: 
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be 
measured to you again." (Matt. 7: 1,2.) There 
is such a thing as being on the right side and man- 
ifesting the wrong spirit. "Now if any man have 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 4j-2 

not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Search- 
ers for truth are always hindered by serious charges 
against those who may differ from them. 

16. The Methodist Church is governed by the 
Bible. The "Discipline" is a mere statement of a 
part of what we believe the Bible teaches. You 
have published your creed in the Gospel Advocate. 
It contains twenty-one articles. [Mr. Nackles re- 
fers to Miss Yount's reasons for leaving- the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South, which were first 
published in the Gospel Advocate, and published 
in this book under Part Fourth, page 55. — Ed.] So 
you cannot object to a church printing* its creed. 
The first thing in the "Discipline" of the Metho- 
dist Church is the twenty-five articles of religion. 
Article No. 5 reads as follows: "Holy Scripture 
containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that 
whatsoever is not read therein, is not to be required 
of any man, that it should be believed as an article 
of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to 
salvation." 

17. Infants are not recognized as members of the 
Methodist Church. They are not entered on the 
church rolls, nor counted when we make reports 
of our membership. We baptize infants in recog- 
nition of the fact that by virtue of the atonement 
they are members of the spiritual church or the body 
of Christ. We do not recognize them as members 
of the congregation or visible church. Besides 
this, baptism is not a condition of the communion. 
The Bible does not discuss these two subjects as re- 
lated at all. The twelve apostles took the com- 



2l3 AN INTEKESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

munion, but they were never baptized. 

18, 19. There could hardly be a plainer contradic- 
tion than j'ou make in these two statements. "It" 
in both statements doubtless refers to the Methodist 
Church. In 18 you say: "It sets aside repentance." 
In 19 you say: "It introduces repentance." What 
do j'ou call that but a contradiction? The Metho- 
dist Church does not teach "salvation by faith only." 
We read in Article No. 9 of the "Discipline:" 
"Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a 
most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." 
Salvation and justification usually do not mean the 
same thing. Salvation includes justification and 
means much more. A man is justified when he be- 
comes a Christian; he is not saved until he g-ets to 
heaven. There is one place in the Scriptures where 
the words "save" and "justified" are used to mean 
the same thing-: "Wiiat doth it profit, my brethren, 
thoug-h a man say he hath faith, and have not 
works? can faith save him? . . . Ye see then how 
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith 
only." (James 2:14-24.) If a man is justified by 
works, how long" must he work before his justifi- 
cation, and what works must he perform? If jus- 
tification is obtained by works, then a man cannot 
be justified until he dies. "Therefore being- justi- 
fied by faith, we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:1.) "Therefore we 
conclude that a man is justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law." (Rom. 3:28.) A man is 
justified by faith. He is saved by faith and works. 

20. Thi church of Christ teaches that those who 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 2 14 

die in infancy will be saved, but they refuse to re- 
ceive them into the church. So you still belong- to 
a church that palms off subjects on the Lord that 
it refuses. It looks very much like you have 
"jumped out of the frying pan into the fire." 

21. This reminds me of a child that refuses to be 
called by any given name. At home I presume 
they call you "Nora." Is that a denial of your 
parents? Does it make you any less their daughter? 
A man may be a Methodist Christian or a Presby- 
terian Christian. The words "Methodist" and 
"Presbyterian" only indicate certain views about 
certain doctrines and practices. 

I will write a conclusion and send you soon. 

Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOR. 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., August 28, 1907.— Mr. 
George W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn. — Dear Sir: 
Your criticism of February 15 is next in order. 
Yes, I belonged lo the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South; but I, like yourself, am in such a habit of 
saying the Methodist Episcopal Church that I left 
off the word "South." In your letter to which I 
am replying you made the same mistake; hence I 
turn your criticism on you. 

I reply to your arguments in order as you have 
them numbered. 

1. Christ said: "Upon this rock I will build my 
church." (Matt. 16:18.) Paul says: "The churches 
of Christ salute you." (Rom. 16:16.) The ad- 
monition to the elders is: "Feed the church of God, 
which he hath purchased with his own blood." 
(Acts 20:28.) If this is not the church ordained of 
God and sealed by the blood of Christ, then what 
church was so ordained and sealed? How can you 
expect intelligent people to believe Methodist doc- 
trine, when its preachers contradict Paul's state- 
ment, "The churches of Christ salute you," by 
saying: "The Bible makes no mention of such an 
institution?" Do you not really think you should 
take back the statement? No wonder the Metho- 
dists capture and baptize all they can in infancy 
and bring them up in sectarian blindness; otherwise 
they would not have so many deluded souls in their 
church. But the great mystery to me is that so 
many will allow themselves to remain deluded after 



\N INTERESTING COKKKSPONDKNCE, 216 

they come to years of maturity. 

2. It is a common expression among- the Metho- 
dists that "one can be saved out of the church as 
well as in it — the church has nothing to do with it," 
and it is unnecessary for you to deny it. The 
people know better. You should be careful how 
you deny facts. However, you are correct in saying 
that "one may be a Christian and get to heaven 
and not belong- to any denomination. 1 ' You admit 
that the church to which you belong- is a denomi- 
nation by saying- the Methodist Episcopal Church 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, "are 
two separate and distinct denominations," and, 
therefore, salvation is not in either of these denom- 
inations. They are nonessential, and hence not or- 
dained of God nor sealed by the blood of Christ. I 
imag-ine you would like to use the old, established 
arg-ument: "The church has nothing- to do with it." 
Since one can be a Christian and g-o to heaven 
without belonging- to either of these denominations, 
I reach the conclusion that they are in the broad 
road. Evidently they are not in the narrow road; 
for, if they were, one would have to g-o through them 
to g-et to heaven. Hence, according- to Matt. 7:13, 
14. and your own statements, these denominations 
are not in the narrow road and do not constitute 
any part of it, neither are they between earth and 
heaven, therefore they are in the broad road. Not 
only does the above show that these denominations 
are not in the narrow road, but it shows that the 
narrow road is not in them, otherwise one would 
have to go- through them to get to heaven. But 



2l7 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

you say one can go to heaven without belonging 
to them. Yes, but he cannot go there without 
being- in the narrow road. I hope the sectarian 
scales will fall from your eyes as they did from 
Saul's eyes, that you may see why I left }Our 
denomination. Can you blame me for leaving it? 
But while one can be a Christian and go to heaven 
outside of these or any other denomination, it is 
equally true that all responsible beings must be in 
the church of Christ, the church of God, to be 
Christians and get to heaven. This is the ark of 
safety — the old ship of Zion. 

3. Since you admit that salvation and the narrow 
road are not in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, nor in any other denomination, this needs no 
reply. 

4. Yes, Christ died for all; but those who are 
subject to the gospel invitation must comp.} 7 with 
the terms of the gospel to be benefited by his death. 
After the ark was completed, Noah and his family 
had to accept the terms of salvation bj- g^ing into 
it. Those who refused these terms were destroyed. 
So Christ shed uis blood for all; but, like Noah, all 
subject to the gospel call must accept the terms 
offered, get into the church of Christ, the spiritual 
ark. But to be in the church is to be in Christ. 
"For as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ." (Col. 3:27. j Hence, 
Methodists, together with all others out of Christ, 
must get into Christ to be saved I had no hope 
while I was a Methodist, because I was not in 
Christ. I ceased to be a Methodist anil became a 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 218 

Christian by obedience to the gospel. I was bap- 
tized into Christ. "If any man be in Christ, he is 
a new creature." (2 Cor. 5:17.) Christ did not 
purchase the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
with his blood. He purchased the church of God. 
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all 
the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his own bipod. " (Acts 20:28. ) 
5. Here you cap the climax in blunders and in 
display of knowledge of church history. Strange 
that one of your standing would belong to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as long as you 
have, and then be unable to give the time when and 
the place where it began. You do not seem to know 
the difference between yourself, your mother, and 
your grandmother. It is time you were learning 
the difference, and so I will undertake to teach you 
more perfectly in Methodism. Not only are the 
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, "two separate and dis- 
tinct denominations," but the Methodist Church, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, are three separate and 
distinct denominations. The Methodist Church is 
the mother of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and 
the Methodist Episcopal Church is the mother of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is a grand- 
daughter of the Methodist Church. You mistake 
the time when and the place where your grand- 
mother was born, and give to her the time and place 



219 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

of your mother's birth. Your mother (the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church) was born in Baltimore, 
Maryland, on December 24, 1784, and your grand- 
mother (the Methodist Church) was born in London, 
in an old foundry, near the close of the year 1739. 
You do not belong- to either of these denominations, 
but you belong- to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. This was born in Louisville, Ky., in May, 
1845. Below I give the history which fixes the time 
when and the place where each of these denomina- 
tions was born. I begin with your grandmother, 
the Methodist Church. On this I quote from "His- 
tory of Methodism," by McTyeire, "D.D.," "one 
of the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South." Its author represents Wesley as saying - : 
" 'Sunday, November 1 L, I preached at eig-ht to five 
or six thousand, on the spirit of bondag-e and the 
spirit of adoption; and at five in the evening-, to 
seven or eig-ht thousand in the place which had 
been the king's foundry for cannon.' " (Pag-e 168.) 
"The edifice had been a ruin for twenty years. In 
recasting- the injured g-uns taken from the French 
in the campaig-ns of Marlboroug-h, a terrible explo- 
sion blew off the roof, shook the building-, and killed 
several of the workmen. This led to its abandon- 
ment, and the removal of the royal foundry lo 
Woolwich. Here was really the cradle of Metho- 
dism. At Bristol the first Methodist church was 
beg-un and built. The Foundry was the first one 
opened for worship. Wesley says, in his introduc- 
tion to the 'General Rules of the Society:' 'In the 
latter end of the year 1739 eight or ten persons 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 220 

came to me in London and desired that I would 
spend some time with them in prayer, and advise 
them how to flee from the wrath to come. This 
was the rise of the United Society.' '.' ( rag-e 169.) 
"A hig-h authority in Wesleyan history fixes July 
20, 1740, as 'in strict propriety real commencement 
of the Methodist Societies.' Wesley, indeed, speaks 
of four other epochs, each of which may be reg-arded 
as a new development. The first of these was the 
rise of student Methodism, when, in 1729, four 
serious students beg-an to meet tog-ether at Oxford. 
The second epoch was in April. 1736, when twenty 
or thirty persons beg-an to meet in Wesley's house 
at Savannah. The third was May 1, 1 738, when, 
by the advice of Peter Bohler, Wesley and other 
serious persons beg-an to meet in Fetter-lane. 
Ag-ain: 'In the latter end of the year 1739 eig-ht or 
ten persons came to me in London, and desired that 
I would spend some time with them in prayer, and 
advise them how to flee from the wrath to come; 
this was the rise of the United Society.' Yet, even 
at this last-named period, Wesley was connected 
with the Petter-lane Society and the Moravians; 
so that the Society formed by him in 1739 did not 
stand out as a separate and distinct religious body. 
But after Sunday, July 20. 1 740, all the initiatory 
stag-es of an orthodox, homog-eneous, and self-gov- 
erning- body had been passed throug-h, and there 
was (in its infancy, indeed, but having- a separate 
existence and action) a Wesleyan Methodist Society. 
Not that it was known by that name — it was not; 
'but from that g"erm the Wesleyan Society has 



221 AN INTHKESTING COKKESPONDENCE 

grbwn, and no other change has passed upon it. 

except from small to great, from few to main . from 
weak to strong - , from a rudimental condition to one 
of full development. The Society then formed at 
the Foundry has remained, bv a continual accession 

of new members, to the present time.' "' Page 17 7. 
Next I give the history of the birth of your 
mother, the Methodist Episcopal Church. On this 
I quote from "History of American Methodism," by 
Abel Stevens, "LL.D." "On Friday, the 24th 
of December. 17S4. the apostolic little company rode 
from Perry Hall to Baltimore, and at 10 o'clock 
A.M. began the first 'General Conference." in the 
Lovely Lane Chapel." Page IbS. : ""On the 
24th we rode to Baltimore: at ten o'clock we beg-an 
our Conference, in which we agreed to form a 
Methodist Episcop.il Church, in which the Liturgy 
(as presented by the Rev. John Wesley) should be 
read, and the sacraments be administered by a su- 
perintendent, eiders, and deacons, who shall be or- 
dained by a presbytery, using the Episcopal form. 
as prescribed in the Rey. Mr. Wesley's prayer 
book.' " Pag"e LS7. Next comes the birth of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. South, the one to 
which you belong-. On this point I quote from 
"History of American Methodism." by Abel 
Stevens In reference to the trouble which arose 
between the Xorth and the Smth. over the slavery 
question, the author says: "Meanwhile the great 
controversy went on in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, till it eventuated in what has justly been 
called th_ ' Oreat Secession' of 1844, bv which nearly 



AN INTEKKSTING COKKKSPONDKNCK. 222 

all the vast territory and numerical force of the 
Southern States were rent away. At the preceding- 
session the old usage of the Church, denying - ordi- 
nation to slaveholding preachers, and especially 
keeping- the episcopate clear of the charg-e of slave- 
holding-, was abandoned by a resolution that 'mere 
ownership in slave property' constitutes no leg-al 
barrier to 'the various grades of the ministry.' 
This, of course, threw open the episcopate itself to 
slaveholders. At the next session it was found that 
one of the bishops had become the owner of slaves 
by marriag-e. He was required to relieve himself 
of the 'impediment,' or to be suspended from his 
functions. The Southern deleg-ates protested, and 
after prolonged and remarkably able debates on 
both sides, they formally announced to the Confer- 
ence that its jurisdiction over their Annual Confer- 
ences 'would be inconsistent with the success of the 
Methodist ministry' in their States. A schism 
seemed now inevitable, and the Conference, to re- 
lieve as much as possible its disastrous effects, en- 
acted 'a plan of separation,' defining- boundaries, a 
division of the Church property, etc., to take effect 
in case of a separate organization. A Southern 
Methodist Convention was held at Louisville in May, 
1845, and 'the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,' 
was there begun. In the next year its first General 
Conference was held at Petersburg!!, Vh., and its 
organization completed." ( Pages 525.526. ) This 
brings me to our ages. The Methodisi Episcopal 
Church, South, was born in Louisville, Ky., May. 
1845. You s iy: "The church of Christ was set up 



223 AN INTERESTING COKKKS PONDENCE. 

in the city of Nashville about 1828." This state- 
ment is not true; but since you make your date 1828, 
I will also use it and show that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. South, is j^ounger than the 
church of Christ. Take 1828 from 1845, and we 
have as a result the church of Christ 17 years the 
older. So you see that your figures are wrong. 
But Nashville is not the birthplace of the church of 
Christ, neither is 1828 the year of her birth. True, 
a congregation of Christians which constituted a 
church of Christ [in the local sense] was planted 
in Nashville some time near 1828 [the first church 
of Christ planted in Nashville was on Church Street, 
in 1828. — Ed.] ; but this was by no means the be- 
ginning- of the church of Christ, for we read of 
"the churches of Christ" in Rom. 16:16. This 
was A.D. 60. Hence the church of Christ existed 
in the days of the apostles. Christ said: "Upon 
this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18.) 
This was A.D. 32. Hence the church of Christ 
was built some time between the years A.D. 32 and 
60. "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved 
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third 
day: and that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, 
beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46.) Jeru- 
salem was the beginning place. A few years after 
the day of Pentecost, Peter, in his defense at Jeru- 
salem, used the past tense and referred to Jerusalem 
and Pentecost as the beginning. He said: "As I 
began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
us at the beginning." (Acts 10:15.) The aposth s 



ajn i:ntekesti:ing coekespojsdeisce. 22^ 

received the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem on the day of 
Pentecost. "And when the day of Pentecost was 
fully come, they were all with one accord in one 
place. And suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven as of a rushing- mighty wind, and it rilled 
all the house where they were sitting-. And there 
appeared unto them cloven tong-ues like as of fire, 
and it sat upon each of them. And they were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and beg-an to speak with 
other tong-ues, as the Spirit g-ave them utterance." 
(Acts 2:1-4.) This was A. D. 33. The apostles 
were at the beginning- of this great work and be- 
came the charter members of the church of Christ. 
4 'God hath set some in the church, first apostles." 
(1 Cor. 12:28.) The apostles as a body were dead 
until they received the Spirit. "The body without 
the spirit is dead." (James 2:26.) The apostles, 
who at first constituted the spiritual body, the 
church, received the Spirit at Jerusalem on the day 
of Pentecost, and there and then became a live, ac- 
tive body. They went to work, and the same day 
"there were added unto them about three thousand 
souls.' 1 (Acts 2:4 1.) Before the day of Pentecost 
the church was in the future and was to be built. 
"Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 
16:18.) In Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and 
ever after that the church was spoken of and people 
added to the same in real existence. "The Lord 
added to the church daily such as should be saved." 
(Acts 2:47.) The elders were admonished to "feed 
the church of God." (Acts 20:28.) Paul addressed 
two letters to "the church of God at Corinth. " 



225 \N IN'TEKESTIXG CO K K ESPON'DEN T CH. 

1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1,2.) "The churches of Christ 
salute you." (Rom. 16:16.) All this could not 
have been said if the church had not existed and 
had its beginning in a completed form in the days 
of the apostles. The city of Jerusalem is the place 
where, and the day of Pentecost A.D. 33 is the 
time when, the church of Christ was completed in 
a live working- order. Take 33 from 1845, and we 
have as a result the church of Christ 1812 years 
older than the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 
Why did you misrepresent the facts relative to the 
above history as you did? Did you think you could 
palm off such on me and blind mv spiritual eve. and 
thus win me back into the darkness of sectarianism? 
This is another reason why I left the Methodist 
doctrine — its preachers cannot defend it without 
misrepresentations. I would not belong- to a church 
when both the word of the Lord and history have to 
be perverted to defend its doctrine. 

6. If the church of Christ did not exist in the 
days of the apostles and they did not belong- to it. 
then will you tell me what church did exist in their 
dav and what church the apostles belong-ed to? 
There was a church in the days of the apostles, and 
they b-longed to it. "God set some in the church, 
first apostles." (Acts 20:28.) Paul says: '"The 
churches of Christ salute vou." ^Rom. 16:16. 
Did he tell the truth? Then the church of Christ 
existed in the davs of the apostles and they be- 
longed t° the same. This could not have been the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, nor her moth- 
er nor grandmother, for we have just seen that 



VN INTERESTING COKKKSPONDEMCH 22^ 

these were born hundreds of years since the days 
of the ap>stles. Will you please tell me what 
church th ' apostles belonged to? Then, how do 
you know the apostles were never baptized in wa- 
ter? When and how did you learn this? You 
must have gotten this from the "Catechism" or the 
"Discipline." You did not get it from the Bible. 
Saul, who was called "Paul,' 1 was an apostle, and 
"hearos-, and was baptized." (Acts 9:18.) He 
was baptized to wash away his sins. (Acts 22:16.) 
He tells us that he was "buried in baptism." 
(Rom. 6:4.) He includes himself with the Ro- 
mans. 

7. See my friend's letter in mine to you of March 
29. [Said letter is found on pag-e 89 of this book. — 
Ed.] 

8. I think you are mistaken about this being* a 
mere opinion. Peter says baptism is "for the re- 
mission of sins" (Acts 2:38); Methodists teach it 
is because of remission of sins. Peter says baptism 
saves us (lP:t. 3:21); Methodists siy it has 
nothing" to do with saving" us. Ananias says bap- 
tism washes away sins (Acts 22:16); Methodists 
say it has nothing- to do with washing - away sins. 
Paul says baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2: 
12); Methodists say it is sprinkling- or pouring-. 
James says we are not justified by faith only (James 
2:24); Methodists say we are. Hence we see that 
my charg-e that the Methodists contradict the Bible 
is true, and that it is not "a mere assertion of an 
opinion without proof." 

9. Yes, there are three congregations in Nashville 



*> FPOKDXKCA 

using instrumental mi;- rsbip. These grew 

tired of the New Testament or iot to 

g-o beyond the things which are written"— 1 Cor. 

V. . and so thev departed from the Lore: 
the New 7 lament. But I am following the Lord 
and the New T--tament. Should all the people in 
Ns shville, apostatize, this would be no reason why I 
should follow. Yes, Paul and Peter and Paul and 
Barnabas had differences, but their differences were 
not over items of worship. Neither should ours be, 
and would not, if jou and the rest would submit tc 
Gt ~ and his laws and preach and practice as "it is 
written." Christ prayed that we all might be one, 
and Paul commanded it. "Neither pray I for th e s e 
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me 
through their word; that they all may be one: as 
thou. Father, i^rtin me, and I in thee, that they 
aJso may be one in us: that the world may believe 
that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou 
gave st :rr I have g-:v-r. them: the t thev may be ore. 
even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that 
they may be made perfect in one; and that the 
world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast 
loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:20- 
23 I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our 

Lord Jesu s Christ, t fa a t ye all speak the same th i . g 
and that there b- no divisions among you; but that 
ytr be perfectly joined together in the same mind 
and in the same judgment." (ICor. 1:10.) 

10. How could Christ be head of so many kinds 
of churchrs or bodies? There are several hundred 
different kinds of religious bodies. Just to think 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 228 

how ridiculous it would be to see one head attached 
to so many bodies. "He is the head of the body, 
the church." (Col. 1:1.8.) Christ is head of but 
one body, and this is the one he bought with his 
own blood. "Feed the church of God, which 1 
hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28.) 
He is not head over such human institutions as the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, because he did 
not build or buy them. These are too young- for 
the blood of Christ and the apostles. The apostles 
did not belong' to them, and Christ is not head over 
anything- the apostles did not belong to. Is it not 
a fact that the bishop is at the head of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South? The "invisible" 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is just as un- 
scriptural as is the "visible" Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Both are outside of the Bible. 
You admit my charge that Christ is not head of the 
Methodist Church by saying: "The General Confer- 
ence is head over the visible Methodist Church." If 
there is no "invisible" Methodist Church, then 
Christ is not head of the Methodist Church in any 
sense. It all depends upon your showing from the 
Bible that there is such a thing as the "invisible" 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

ll. Your charge against the preachers of the 
church of Christ is like your points relative to your 
age — not true. But, of course, when a witness mis- 
represents facts in history to gain a point, he will 
misrepresent the other fellow for the same purpose. 
The sin is just as great to omit a part of a passage 
of scripture as it is to change it, when it is done to 



229 A.N INTI5KHSTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

deceive. It will also apply to omitting and chan- 
ging- facts of history, and for this reason I advise 
you to beware in both instances. Christian people 
believe that there is a Holy Spirit and that he is re- 
ceived according-to Acts2:33: "Then Peter said un- 
to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost/' 
Perhaps you heard some one argue that the bap- 
tism of the Spirit ceased. That is correct. Are 
you baptized with the Spirit? The Spirit through 
inspired men bore testimony that Jesus Christ is 
Lord, and no one can, in the absence of this testi- 
mony, say Christ is Lord. Hence the expression: 
"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but bv 
the Holy Ghost." 

L2. The church of Christ does have and believe 
in mourners, but they do not have a mourner's 
bench for them to weep and mourn on a week or so 
to "get through." Whenever one is sorry for sin 
and grieving over it, he is a mourner, whether he is 
on a bench or a fence. When a Christian finds h 
mourner, he does not pat him on the head and say: 
"Brother, you are almost through; you will make 
it directly; a little more faith and trust in God, and 
you will get it." But he says, as Ananias said to 
Saul: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 
16. ) Do you talk to mourners as Ananias did? If 
not, why not? 

13. I should not be surprised if Christian preach- 
ers were sometimes imposed upon by hypocrites, and 



A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 230 

that in some instances they baptize persons with- 
out a chang-e of heart, and I also suspect that Meth- 
odist preachers do the same thing-. But when an 
adult practices hypocrisy and demands baptism at 
the hands of a Christian, the fault is in the hypo- 
crite, and not in the preacher nor in the preaching, 
from the fact that the preacher preached a changfe 
of heart as a condition of pardon; but when a Meth- 
odist preacher sprinkles an infant, the preacher is 
in the wrong*, and not the infant, from the fact that 
he knows he is baptizing - one not subject to the 
g-ospel invitation. It has neither faith, repentance, 
nor chang-e of heart. Therefore, when Methodist 
preachers practice infant baptism, they are prac- 
ticing- a fraud on both the infant and the world. 
But do you say .the infant needs no faith, repent- 
ance, nor change of heart? If so, the statement is 
true, and for these three reasons it needs no bap- 
tism, because scriptural baptism follows faith, re- 
pentance, and chang-e of heart. Your expression, 
"Most of the members of the church of Christ do 
not believe in a chmg-e of heart," is untrue. I am 
sorry to see you taking- such a course in this discus- 
sion, for I fear it will cause your word to depreciate 
in value. You should remember the adag-e: 
"The truth itself is not believed 
Prom one who often has deceived." 
If there is Bible authority for baptizing- infants, I 
wish you would produce the scripture authorizing 
it. The ten dollars in g-old is yours the day you do 
it. Lovell, Clement, and the Bishop failed at this 
point; so will you make your word gocd by prcdu- 



231 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

cing the scripture which shows the time when and 
the place where Christ or the apostles authorized 
or practiced infant baptism? 

14. Yes, the Bible mentions both the baptism of 
water and the baptism of the Spirit; but the Spirit 

iptism served its purpose and passed away. Hence, 
Paul says: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." 
Do you say this is Spirit baptism? Then where is 
your authority for water baptism, and why do you 
practice it? If two baptisms were in existence 
when Paul wrote, then he was mistaken in what he 
said. He should have said: "One Lord, one faith, 
and two baptisms." 

15. There is no room in the worship of God for 
opinions. They should be held as private property 
and left on the outside of the worship of God, and 
the word of the Lord be obeyed. This is where 
Methodists make a mistake. They set aside the 
word of God and substitute opinions. For example, 
Peter says baptism is "for the remission of sins" — 
that it saves us; and Ananias says it washes away 
sins; but the Methodists set this all aside and sub- 
stitute their opinion, which is that baptism is "be- 
cause of the remission of sins; it has nothing- to do 
with saving- us, neither does it wash away sins." 
You can apply the woes of adding- to and taking- 
from the word of God in Rev. 22:18,19, to yourself. 

16. I am sure the Methodist Church and her 
daughter and granddaughter are not governed by 
the Bible. If they were, they would not practice 
infant baptism nor sprinkle adults. They would 
also baptize for the remission of sins and cease 



A.N INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCK 232 

preaching- justification by faith only. In teaching 
and practicing* the above-named things the Metho- 
dists are g-uided by the ' ' Discipline," and not the Bi- 
ble, from the fact that they are not found in the Bible. 
If the holy Scriptures contain all things necessa- 
ry to salvation, as the "Discipline" says, which they 
do, then what use have you for the "Discipline," and 
why are you constantly praying- for the converting 
power (the Holy Spirit) to come from heaven? If 
this statement in the "Discipline" be true, then is 
it not a useless book and your prayers for the con- 
verting- power of the Holy Spirit a. mockery? 

17. If baptism is a door into the church, as Mr. 
Clement said in one of his letters, then, when you 
baptize an infant, it is in the church whether you 
recog-nize it or not. If the infant which is baptized 
is not in the church, then when and how does the 
adult who was baptized in infancy get into the 
church? Are they in or out of the church? The 
communion was given to the baptized; but the poor 
infant does not g-et the communion even if it has 
been baptized. Flow much better off is the baptized 
infant than the unbaptized one? "Infants are not 
recog-nized as members of the Methodist Church." 
In your tract, "The Mode of Water Baptism." page 
13, vou say: "Those who are so anxious to follow 
Christ should follow the example of his parents and 
have their children baptized, and thereby recog-nize 
them as members of his kingdom in infancy." 
Which statement is true? The latter quotation 
was printed in 1906, and at that time parents should 
"have their children baptized, and thereby recog-- 



233 AJN INTKKKSTING COKKKSPONDENCK 

nize them as members of his kingdom in infancy;" 
but in February, 1907, "infants are not recognized 
as members of the Methodist Church." Which 
statement must I believe? 

IS, 19. You fail to grasp my points. The points 
were and are that the Methodists set aside repent- 
ance in the faith-alone theory and kill the faith- 
alone theory by introducing- repentance. These 
were used to show the contradictious in Methodism. 
One is justified by faitli at the time his faith is 
strong enough to obey God. "For ye are all the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of j t ou as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ." (Gal. 3:26,27.) "He that beiiev- 
2th and is baptized shall be saved; but he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16.; 
"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves 
servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye 
obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience 
unto rig-hteousness? But God be thanked, that ye 
were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from 
the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered 
you. Being' then made free from sin, ye became 
the servants of righteousness. " (Rom. 6:16-18.) 

20. No, the church of Christ does not palm off 
something- on the Lord that it refuses. Refusing 
to baptize infants is not palming off the infant. 
The infant belongs to the Lord already. The point 
I made was that you baptize the infant and palm it 
off on the Lord when you would not recognize it 
yourself. This you admit in item 17. 

21. Here you make another blunder. Christ is 



AN t X T E K ESTIN G CO K K E3PG: . UB,\ CE 234 

the spiritual husband and the church is the wife. 
It is the duty of the wife to wear the name of 
her husband. "The disciples were called Chris- 
tians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26.) The spirit- 
ual wife cannot speak her name (Christian) without 
calling- the name of her husband (Christ.) She 
cannot spell her name (Christian) without spelling- 
the husband's name (Christ). When she wears the 
name of her husband, she honors him; but when 
she wears the name of another, she dishonors him. 
Methodists and Presbyterians, tog-ether with all 
other sects, dishonor Christ by refusing- to wear his 
name. But you say: "A man may be a Methodist 
Christian or a Presbyterian Christian." We do not 
read of such Christians in the Bible. How would 
you like for your wife to wear the name of some other 
man with yours attached? This is exactly the way 
Methodists and Presbyterians do the spiritual hus- 
band. In the days of the apostles the disciples 
were simply and only Christians. This is what we 
should be. The names "Methodist" and "Presby- 
terian" are humanly invented names and should be 
abandoned. This is what I did, and, like Paul, I 
persuade people to be Christians. "Then Agrippa 
said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a 
Christian." (Acts 26:28.) 

Your friend, 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



::r PASTOR TO 3ITSS yount. 

C on BV ru rj25, L9C /.—Miss Nora 
Y ettsviile, Tenn. — Deal M lam: Y u 

the Methodist Church teacher I: :::-kes 
qo di Ee ; u ; h one belongs to — one 

church is as g ls another." Some thoughtless or 
uninfonnr 1 1 list maj have made th at remark, 

but the Methodist Church does not teach that. Y 

aal in the "Discipline" 
n±s when ::: .-.::'..- rs Trere received into 
"Bi e rhren, the church is of God, and 
ed until the end of time for the promo- 
n of his worship and the due administration 
: his word and ordinances — the maintenance of 
istian fellowship and liscipline — the edifica- 
i of believers and the conversion of the world. 
All, of every ag-e and station, stand in need of the 
:s of grace which it alone supplies.*' (Para- 
Disci pline."). I never read such a state- 
ment as you ::: ike i a any Methodist book. I never 
hear M rhodist preacher make such a state- 

We are all more or less inclined to takr 
>:_.:-■ iir:::^ ::;i "r ':. -.■-."..;.' :: * i !.:■::.::;:::'::_: 
teaching- of a church. That is always a mis- 
7 he only way to find out what a church 
te iches is to g"et the opinions of a majority of the 
consistent, faithful members. The Methodist 
j jes all denominations as churches, 
and the faithful members of all churches as Chris- 
is. At the same time we believe that the doc- 
ies :: our church are more in harmony with the 



AN INTEKESTING COKRBSPONUBNCB 23 '> 

Scriptures, and that our methods of work are more 
successful, than the other churches. Joining the 
church is a matter of choosing" between several 
worthy organizations. Where a person can be the 
best satisfied and do the greatest g-ood is the place 
to g-o. 

Your Methodist friends will not be "alarmed" at 
your chang'e. They will still recog'nize you as a 
Christian and expect to meet you in heaven, if you - 
and they are faithful to the end. They may draw 
some conclusions which probably they will never 
mention to you. (1) They will feel sorry that you 
left tiie church; no church likes to lose members. 
(2) No doubt they were very much astonished that 
you would, in so short a time, chang'e from a radi- 
cal Methodist to a faith that denounces Methodism 
as a heresy, and then g*o into the public prints as a 
critic of the Methodist doctrines and ministry. (3) 
They may conclude that there was some motive or 
purpose other than a chang'e of views on doctrines 
that influenced you to leave the Methodist Church. 
Such conclusions are common under such circum- 
stances. (4) Some of your friends may not be the 
same to you that they were before. If so, study 
carefully the cause of their alienation before you 
criticise them. 

Let us look at a contrast between the Methodist 
Church and the church of Christ. 

I. The Methodist Church teaches the most uni- 
versally accepted doctrines of any Protestant church 
in the world. The Protestant church membership 
of the United States is about 20,000,000. The 



237 AN IN TfcEKKS ri.VMi cokkkspondench 

Methodists have 6,000,000; Baptists, o, 000,000; 
Presbyterians, 4,000,000; Disciples, 1,500,000; 
church of Christ, 500,000; other denominations 
3, 000,000. Now let us take a vote on doctrines. On 
the mode of baptism, the Baptists, Disciples, and 
church of Christ favor immersion only. Thev num- 
ber 7,000,0(»0. Only one-third of the church popu- 
lation. On infant baptism, the vote stands the 
same way. On. the design of baptism, the Disciples 
and the church of Christ say it is for the remission 
of sins. They have only one-tenth of the members. 
On communion, the Baptists favor close commun- 
ion. They have only one-fourth of the members. 
So three-fourths agree with us. On the possibility 
of apostasy, all are with us, except the Baptists and 
Presbyterians. So that gives us 11,000,000 on that 
subject. These five are the doctrines about which 
there is the most controversy. 

2. The Methodist Church indorses every move- 
ment and organization which has for its object the 
betterment of mankind. The church of Christ has 
declared perpetual war on all sorts of organizations. 
In November, 1905, a great interchurch conference 
met in New York City. Every denomination of any 
importance in the United States had representa- 
tives, except the church of Christ. In March, 1906, 
the Student Volunteer Convention met in Nash- 
ville. Every church in the land sent delegates, ex- 
cept the church of Christ. These two great meet- 
ings set on foot movements that will do wonders in 
the evangelization of the world. The convention 
at Nashville was the greatest religious gathering 



AN INTKKESTING COJ'i'.'KSPUNDENCK. 23S 

ever held south of the Onio River. A member of 
the church of Christ is cut off from th< j influence 
and power of the great world move men is which arc 
engaging" the minds of the thinking" public to-day. 

3. The Methodists are giving" more men and 
women and more money to the great missionary 
movement of the ag"e than any other church. Their 
missionaries are in almost every heathen nation un- 
der heaven and on nearly every island of the sea. 
The main streng-th of the church of Christ is in 
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. Their only for- 
eign missionaries are in Japan. The command of 
Christ, "Go ye . . . and preach the g"ospel to every 
creature," precedes the statement: kt He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved." 

These three letters replying" to your reasons for 
leaving the Methodist Church are really all one 
message. I divided it because it was so lengthy. 
Yours fraternally, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 



LETTER FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOK 

Goodlettsville, Tenn., September I, 1907.— Mr. 
George W. Nackles, Alexandria, Teim. — Dear Sir: 
Yours of February 25 is next in order. The mean- 
ing- of the expression, "The Methodist Church 
teaches it makes no difference what church one be- 
longs to— one church is as good as another," as used 
by me, is that the Methodists teach that one can be 
a Christian and get to heaven as well in one church 
as in another. This you admit is true by saying: 
"The Methodist Church recognizes all denomina- 
tions as churches, and the faithful members of all 
churches as Christians." According to this, one 
is just as safe in one church as he is in another, 
and therefore my charge is true. Not only is my 
charge true, but if it is a fact that "the faithful 
members of all churches are Christians," then the 
faithful members of the Mormon Church and the 
Roman Catholic Church are Christians, and there- 
fore these churches are just as good as the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South. If not, why not? 
Not only are these things true, but you admit 
that one can be a Christian and go to heaven just 
as well in the kingdom of Satan as he can in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. In yours of 
February 15, you say that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, is a denomination, and that "one 
may be a Christian and get to heaven and not be- 
long to any denomination. '' There are but two 
kingdoms — God's and Satan's. All responsible be- 
ings are in one or the other of these kingdoms. 



AN INTEKHSTING COKKKSPONDKN CK 2^0 

Since "one may be a Christian and get to heaven 
and not belong- to any denomination," which in- 
cludes the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
therefore ''one may be a Christian and get to heaven" 
in the kingdom of Satan. These things being 
true, will you please tell me how much better is the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, than the king- 
dom of Satan? 

Yes, many are inclined to take statements from 
"radical and illiterate people," and especially so 
when they accept statements from Methodist 
preachers. As far as the true teaching of the Bible 
is concerned, I do not know of a more "radical and 
illiterate" set of men than Methodist preachers, if 
those who have taken part in this discussion are a 
fair sample. 

If it is true that "where a person can be the best 
satisfied and do the greatest good is the place to 
go,'' then if one can be better satisfied and think he 
can do the most good either in the Mormon Church 
or the Roman Catholic Church, he should go there. 
I must confess that you are a wonderful reasoner 
for the nineteenth century. It is such a pity you 
did not live in the days of the apostles and assist 
them in their work. I am sure that if you and the 
Methodist preachers represented in this discussion 
had lived and labored with the apostles, you would 
have been a great help to them by pointing out to 
them their errors and having them to record things 
differently in the Bible. 

But if one should go where he is best satisfied and 
can do the most good, then, since I am better satis- 



24 i AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

tied and can do the most good in the church of God, 
why should ray Methodist friends feel sorry over 
my departure, and some of them not be the same to 
me as before? This is inconsistent. If I am satis- 
fied, they should be; and besides this, they should 
practice the Golden Rule. Should some of my 
Methodist friends do as you predict, they will vio- 
late the Golden Rule and thereby cease to be true 
and faithful to God, and thus debar themselves 
from heaven. How can they be Christians and thus 
act? You certainly have a very poor opinion of 
some of the Methodists. You call their Christian 
spirit in question by insinuating- that some of them 
will purposely and knowingly violate the Golden 
Rule by mistreating" me. How c:^n they have the 
spirit of Christ and reach heaven by thus acting-? 
If I have committed an offense ag-ainst them, in- 
stead of following the spirit of the evil one, they 
should follow the Lord and do g-ood for evil. 

But if it is true that one should g-o where he can 
be the best satisfied and can do the most good, then 
why do you object to people being- Mormons, Ro- 
mon Catholics, and Universalists? If they are sat- 
isfied, then, according to your theory, they are where 
they should be, and why should you try to dissatis- 
fy them by preaching against their doctrine? 

"Joining the church being the choosing between 
several worthy organizations" is the language of 
Ashdod. God is the one to be pleased, not man. 
We do not read in the Bible of people "joining the 
church" of their own choosing. In the days of the 
apostles there was but one church, and instead of 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 242 

"joining-" it the people obeyed the gospel and the 
Lord added them to it. "The Lord added to the 
church daily such as should be saved." (Acts 2: 
47. ) There is danger of one getting- into the wrong 
institution by "joining" the church of his own 
choosing; but if he will obey the gospel and allow 
the Lord to add him to the church, he will go into 
•the right institution. We are left to choose whom 
we will serve. "Choose you this day whom ye will 
serve" is a law of God which has never been repealed. 
While God gave to man the right to choose 
tae master he will serve, he reserved the right to 
put people where they belong. He did not leave 
church choosing, as presented by you, to man. Je- 
sus purchased the church of God with his own 
blood for man, and says to him: "Enter ye in at the 
strait gate." (Matt. 7:13.) In the days of the 
apostles there were no churches to choose between, 
from the fact that there was but one church at that 
time. But if there had been many different kinds 
of churches in the days of the apostles, and if God 
had left the choosing to man, it would have been 
impossible for any one to have selected the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, at that time, because 
it was not then in existence. It was born in Louis- 
ville, Ky., in May, 1845. Church choosing began 
with the birth of the Roman Catholic Church and 
has existed among her descendants all down the 
line, and will thus continue as long as the blood of 
Catholicism remains. In the days of tin* -postles 
there was but one church. "There shall be one 
fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16.) "There is 



243 \iN INTEKHSTING CUKKESFONUEMh 

one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in 
one hope of your calling." (Epli. 4:4.) "But now 
are they many members, yet but one body." (1 Cor. 
12:20.) All the members are in the body. "God 
set the members every one of them in the body, as 
it hath pleased 111111." (ICor. 12: IS.) This body 
is the church of GjcI — the church of Christ. "I 
say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon 
this rock I will build my church; and the g-ates of 
hell shall not prevail ag-ainst it." (Matt. 16:18.) 
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all 
the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28. ) 
"Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ 
through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 
unto the church of God which is at Corinth." 
(ICor. 1:1,2.) "Give none offense, neither to the 
Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 
(ICor. 10:32.) "If any man seem to be contentious, 
we have no such custom, neither the churches of 
God." (1 Cor. 11:16.) "For I am the least of the 
apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, 
because I persecuted the church of God." (ICor. 
15:9.) "For ye have heard of my conversation in 
time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond 
measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted 
it." (Gal. 1:13.) "For if a man know not how 
to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the 
church of God?" (lTim. 3:5.) "These thing's 
write I unto thee-, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 
but if I tarrv long, that thou mayest know how 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 244 

thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, 
which is the church of the living- God, the pillar 
and ground of the truth." (1 Tim. 1:14,15.) "The 
churches of Christ salute you." (Rom. 16:16.) 
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of 
God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of 
God which is at Corinth." (2 Cor. 1:1.) 

According- to Matt. 7:13,14, and other scriptures, 
there was but one road leading- to heaven in the 
days of the apostles; and there are several reasons 
why the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is not 
this road, neither did she constitute any part of it, 
but I will mention only two or three here. (1) She 
did not exist then. She was born in Louisville, Ky., 
in May, L845, about seventeen hundred and forty- 
nine years after the New Testament was written. 
(2) You say, "One may be a Christian and not be- 
long* to this denomination;" but it is equally true 
that for one to be a Christian and go to heaven he 
must be in and travel the narrow road, and there- 
fore the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is not 
this road, neither does it constitute any part of it. 
Not only is this true, but the narrow road does not 
lead throug-h the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South; otherwise one would have to go through the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to get to 
heaven. 

Yes, judging from the racket the Methodists are 
making, they are very sorry of something; but I 
am inclined to think that they are sorrowing over 
the death of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and its ministry. They are sorry their ministry 



845 *. •■ ::■: : - - cvdhxc- 

dug- their own grave and filled it with their own 
church; that it decorated the grave with their own 

' . thrir ■: ",•:; m : .u.u:r::t. 

rote their own epitaph. 
Saul of Tarsus learned the way of the Lord and 
ty to which he belonged was a sect in- 

le :: three '17-: a.:::: ~~'.'-j should it be tl:: /.nut a 
g incredible, most noble Festus, should I do 
likewise? People were very much astonished at 
Saul's rapid turn and of his renouncing- his former 
teaching- and ministry, and he received almost all 
kinds of persecutions from his former friends, and 
it will be no strang-e thing- should my former friends 
do me likewise. 

You seem to console yourself over the thought of 
finding- by counting- heads that you have the • big- 
crowd with yen. Suppose time cue representing- 
t'ne evil cue in cue clays :f Noah had ::nir :: Xoah 
while lie was preaching' an: preparing" t'ne ark. and 
said: "Mr. Noah. I have had this ark-'cuuding- and 
your preaching- under prayerful and tkoug/htfm 
consideration for some time, and I took the pains 
and trouble to :ount heads, and I und that the big 

tin ding* yourself, on your side. Now yon know. 

rother. that the way to settle this natter is to 

leave it t: the majority: and since the majority is 

nst y-: '. therefore you are wrong/: and if you 

continue te demunce our ministry as false and cur 

::u: as heresy, you will prove to the world that 

j::. ar-r not only unwise, but foolish. Some will 

/ much astonished at you for criticising- our 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 246 

doctrine and ministry, and doubtless some will con- 
clude that other motives or purposes besides the 
salvation of the world and the betterment of jour- 
self and family have prompted you to this work and 
preaching", for such conclusions are common under 
such circumstances. And some of your former 
friends may not be the same to you as they were 
before, for you know we preach the most universal 
and accepted doctrine in the land; and if your for- 
mer friends are not the same to you, consider well 
their alienation before you criticise them." But 
Noah, in the faith of Israel's God, moves on with 
his work and preaching-, completes his task, goes 
into the ark, and God closes him in, and, as a re- 
sult, Noah and his little despised crowd pass safely 
through the flood, while the big, boasting crowd 
and universal doctrine are destroyed. 

Your voting on doctrine is not scriptural. Bible 
doctrine is not to be determined by vote, but by the 
word of God. Had a vote been cast in the days of 
Noah, the personal ministry of Christ, and the days 
of the apostles, Noah, Christ, and the apostles 
would have been voted down. Should it be left to 
a vote in the judgment, the devil would out-vote 
the Lord and gain the victory. "Enter ye in at the 
strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the 
way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be 
which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and 
narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few 
there be that find it." (Matt. 7:13,14.) The devil 
would laugh in his sleeves if he could get it left to 
a vote. Because you have more heads andean cast 



247 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

more votes is no evidence that } r our doctrine is true 
or that the Lord is with you; but, on the other hand, 
it is strong- evidence against you, from the fact 
that the majority has been on the wrong- side since 
the fall of man in Eden, and w 7 ill be when the arch- 
angel shall come in the last day and stand with one 
foot on the land and the other on the sea and an- 
nounce that time shall be no more. 

Yes, the Methodist Church indorses every move- 
ment and org-anization that can be hatched up, 
save the "movement and organization" ordained of 
God and sealed by the blood of Christ. They have 
since their first appearance made constant war on 
this blood-boug-ht institution. Some of them indorse 
everything- except the right thing-, as can be seen 
in this discussion. 

No, the church of Christ had no representatives 
at the great "Interchurch Conference" and the 
"Student Volunteer Convention" held in New York 
and Nashville, and neither did God. The Lord 
would have spent the large sum of money that was 
required to run and operate these unscriptural 
meetings in feeding and clothing the widow, and 
the orphan, and in educating and preaching the 
gospel to the poor. Had this money been appro- 
priated to sending true gospel preachers into the 
field, doubtless hundreds of souls would have been 
converted and numbered with the saved before these 
delegates reached their homes on their return trip; 
or if it had been appropriated for the feeding and 
clothing of the poor, hundreds of the hungry and 
naked would have been fed and clothed before these 



Alt INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 248 

delegates reached New York or Nashville. But, as 
it is, the railroads, hotels, etc., got the money; the 
delegates, a pleasure trip; the poor, hunger, poverty, 
and rags; and, worst of all, the sinner died, is dying, 
and will continue to die without the bread of life. 
These great human movements rob God of the glory, 
the church, of her money; the poor, of bread and 
clothing; and the sinner, of the gospel. People ad- 
mit by these human movements and organizations 
that God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit made a failure 
with their organization and movement. The 
church of God is the only religious institution and 
movement ordained of God and sealed by the blood 
of Christ for the salvation of the world or for th<- 
betterment of man. It is the only institution that 
can lift man from earth to heaven. All others are 
human and can raise man no higher than himself, 
from the fact that no institution is higher or greater 
than its author. Human institutions cannot save; 
for if they could, Jesus died in vain. Inventions of 
men are only parasites sucking the life blood from 
the church or body of Christ and dethroning the 
Son of God. No institution can save the world or 
lead people to God, save the one purchased by the 
blood of his Son. All others are human, without 
the cross and the blood of Christ, and lead people 
away from God instead of leading them to him. 
The church of Christ is the only ark of safety. 
In it there is salvation, and out of it there is noth- 
ing but condemnation. All religious institutions 
born since the days of the apostles are human, 
without Christ and his blood, and are simply stum- 



249 AN INTEKKST1NG COKKESPONDENCH. 

bling- blocks to the world. They are as useless, re- 
ligiously, as secret organizations, and you agree to 
this by saying: "One may be a Christian and go to 
heaven without belonging- to any denomination." 
There is just as much of the redeeming blood of the 
Son of God in the Masonic order as there is in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, or any other 
denomination. There is none in either. I can prove 
this by your own writings. It strikes me that you 
are a Mason; and if so, perhaps }-ou would like to 
prove that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
has more salvation and redeeming blood in it than 
the Masonic order. If so, the way is open. I 
would like to see you try to prove it. 

Of all the men, women, and money given to the 
great missionary movement, combined with all the 
missionaries you have among the heathen and in the 
islands of the sea, how many people have they led 
to Christ? Did a sinner ever learn from their 
preaching what to do to be saved? Did anxious 
sinners ever hear one of these missionaries say, as 
did Peter on the day of Pentecost: "Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit?" (Acts 2:38.) Did 
these missionaries ever say to a mourner in the 
islands of the sea or elsewhere, "Arise, and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
of the Lord," as Ananias told Saul? (Acts 22:16. ) 
I have been hearing Methodist preachers preach for 
several years, and I must confess that I never heard 
one tell a sinner what to do to be saved, as inspired 



\N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 250 

men told tliem in the days of the apostles. Your 
missionaries are not telling- the heathen what to 
do to be saved, and how can they learn from their 
preaching- what to do to be saved? Then, I ask, 
what g-ood are your missionaries doing-? None, 
except from a moral standpoint. Their work is a 
moral work, not a spiritual work. 

Your statement that the only foreign missionaries 
the church of Christ has are in Japan is not true. 
I do not know how many foreign missionaries the 
church of Christ has, but I do know that there is 
one in Persia, as well as those in Japan. But wheth- 
er there are any others or not, the one in Persia 
proves your statement untrue. 

I expect to have my motives for obeying- the 
gospel called in question. Jesus, when he was here 
doing good to all men, had his motives and pur- 
poses called in question by the wicked. They attrib- 
uted his good works to evil purposes and said: "This 
fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub 
the prince of the devils." (Matt. 12:24.) Then 
why should I be surprised if the same is thrown 
into my face? 

Relative to the mistreatment you think I may re- 
ceive, I pray in the spirit of the Lord and in the 
words of the Master while on the cross: "Father, 
forgive them; for they know not what they do." 
I assure you, my dear sir, that before I would for- 
sake the blood-bought institution and the Prince of 
peace, I would be crucified like as the Son of God, 
or die the death of a Stephen or that of a Paul. I 
hope to so live that when the time comes for me to 



251 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

bid farewell to the thing's of this world, I shall be 
able to say, as did Paul the aged: "I am now ready 
to be oilered, and the time of my departure is at 
hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished 
my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there 
is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which 
the Lord, the rig'htecus judge, shall givemeatthat 
day: and not to me only, but unto all them also 
that love his appearing." As Stephen, themartyr, 
while he was being stoned and the soul leaving the 
aching and bruised body, prayed for his persecu- 
tors, so do I: "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." 
May God spare your lives, and may each of you see 
the error of your way, repent, and be saved on the 
terms of the gospel, is the prayer and desire of an 
humble child of God. 

I cannot refrain from asking three qiiestions. 

(1) Does the narrow road leading to heaven lead 
through the Methodist Episcopal Church, South? 

(2) If it does, and since baptism is the door into 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, then how 
can a responsible being reach heaven without bap- 
tism? (3) If the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, is not in the narrow road leading to heaven, 
then is she not in the broad road? 

Your friend, 
(Miss) Nora Yount. 
[These three letters of Miss Youut's, replying 
to Mr. Nackles' criticism of her reasons for leaving 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, received 
no reply. The reader should not lose sight of the 
fact that the three letters containing Mr. Nackles' 



A.tf ItfTEKISSritfG COKKfiSPONDtJNCH 252 

criticism were all received before Miss Yount began 
her reply to the same, as dates of said letters and 
replies will show. — Ed.] 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOK TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Tenn., July 30, 1907. — Dear Miss 
Yount: Yoursof the 15th. received. ... The plain 
and unmistakable thought of my statement is, we do 
not recognize infants as members of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, but do recognize them as 
members of the kingdom of Christ. I have never 
argued that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
and the kingdom are the same. 

I am glad to receive jour examination of my 
"Mode of Water Baptism. 1 ' It is not necessary 
that I should go over it again and make the argu- 
ments anew. It would be in substance the same. 
The tract is my argument. But 1 will notice a few 
things, particularly your method of examination. 

1. You question my honesty, declare some of my 
statements false, indicate that possibly I am an 
idiot and will get to heaven without baptism, and 
make out my argument as being very weak and 
foolish. Most of these things do need an answer. 
Personal thrusts and insinuations are usually an- 
swered in the same way and same spirit. I do not 
engage in that kind of thing. 

2. Why do you engage in a controversy with a 
possible idiot who is either unable or unwilling to 
make a truthful and sensible argument? Why do 
you write a letter of seventj-one pages examining 
such a frivolous, unreasonable, untruthful thing as 
my little book on baptism? 

3. If my reasoning is as weak and foolish as you 
represent it to be, then the best thing you can do 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 254 

for your cause is to circulate my book. If you will 
publish your review of the work, I will exchange 
one hundred copies with you and try to get all the 
people who read my book to read yours also. If 
any immersion ist will publish a book on baptism 
which is as weak, foolish, and contradictory as you 
say my book is, I will take pleasure in circulating 
it. It will help our cause. Several immersionists 
who have heard my sermon and read my book have 
said that they did not agree with me, but they 
thought that was a liberal and strong presentation 
of my side of the subject. The lawyer mentioned 
on pages five and six is a member of the church of 
Christ. [I wonder why the lawyer's name and ad- 
dress are omitted here and in tract? — Ed.] 

4. You attack mostly the less important parts of 
my argument, and do not notice the best of it. 
Any writer can be shown up to a disadvantage in 
that way to people- who have not read his book. If 
any editor should review a book in that wa} r , he 
would be severely criticised. 

5. Your greatest effort is to show that I contra- 
dict myself. You discuss at length some seeming 
contradictions. You take statements out of their 
connection, and, by putting your construction on 
them, make the introduction and the conclusion 
contradict the main body of the book. That can 
be done with any book. The Bible so interpreted 
is a bundle of contradictions. That is one of the 
methods by which the infidel denies the inspiration 
of the Scriptures. 

Let us notice the more important points of argu- 



255 A.N INTERESTING CO KKESPON HENCE. 

ment: 

L. The General Statement. This shows that 
there are two sides to the question, and that per- 
sonal references are not argument. 

2. Baptism Defined. You dodge this by going- 
back to the Greek. How do you know what the 
Greek meant in the time of Christ? 

3. The one-baptism and much-water theories. 

4. The Pentecostal converts, Saul, Cornelius, and 
the jailer. 

5. John's Baptism was not Christian Baptism. 

6. Christ is not our example in baptism. This 
you dodg-e by switching off on infant baptism and 
baptism for the remission of sins. If we should 
follow Christ in the mode, then we should follow 
Christ in the design. If Christ was baptized to 
fulfill all righteousness, then we should be baptized 
to fulfill all righteousness, and not for the remis- 
sion of sins. If we are required to be baptized as 
Christ was baptized, then are we not required to 
fast forty days after baptism and do other things 
as Christ did them? 

7. Questions Answered. 

8. Questions Asked. These are the eight lead- 
ing" points in the argument. You mention three of 
them and ignore the other five. 

Now let us consider the contradictions: 
1. You claim that the conclusion of my book of- 
fers Christ and the eunuch as examples of immer- 
sion; the Pentecostal converts, Saul, Cornelius, and 
the jailer, as examples of affusion; but the body of 
the book teaches that neither mode can be proven. 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 256 

The book as a whole plainty teaches that no mode 
of baptism can be proven in the Bible, therefore any 
mode is baptism. It is possible that several modes 
were practiced in Bible times. Many people believe 
that John immersed and that Christ and the eu- 
nuch were immersed. Many others believe that the 
Pentecostal converts, Saul, Cornelius, and the jailer 
were sprinkled. The references in the conclusion 
anticipate the thought of people, and do not ex- 
press the views of the writer. 

2. I claim that no mode can be proven, and yet 
practice modes after saying- that I can prove any- 
thing* I believe or practice to my satisfaction. That 
is one of the plainest things in the world. If God 
tells a man to do a thing and does not tell him how 
to do it, then he may do it as he pleases. Your 
theory seems to be that God not only tells what to 
do, but how to do it. How does God tell us to take 
the communion? Shall we sit, stand, or kneel? 

You ask the following question: "Where is the 
chapter in the Bible that mentions the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, South, or that shows the apostles 
sprinkled or poured water for baptism?" Where is 
the chapter and verse in the Bible that mentions 
the church of Christ or that shows that the apostles 
immersed, dipped, or plunged people in water for 
baptism? You need not waste time in your answer 
by quoting "buried with him in baptism," "went 
down into the water," and "came up out of the 
water." They do not mean "immerse," "plunge," 
or "dip." I will accept no answer that does not 
contain the word "immerse," "plunge," or "dip." 



257 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

You still seem to think that I should indorse all 
that John Wesley taught. Wesley was a good man 
and a great scholar. What he says on Rom 6:4 
is his opinion. It may or may not be true. Wesley, 
nor any other man, cannot proA^e it true. 

There are only two Standard translations of the 
Bible in the English languag-e — the Authorized and 
Revised. If we disregard these, we are at sea with- 
out chart or compass. We are in darkness with no 
hope of light. We must have a standard. I ac- 
cept nothing- that cannot be proven by these. Bap- 
tism is the name of an ordinance and means noth- 
ing- as to a mode. The reason there are no trans- 
lations that g-ive the word "sprinkle" or "pour" 
instead of "baptize" is because that would be the 
same mistake as to translate it "immerse." Bap- 
tism is the application of water to a person as a re- 
ligious rite or ceremony. It does not mean sprin- 
kling-, pouring, or immersion. 

Baptism is not the door into the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. A person baptized by a 
Methodist minister is no part of a member of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. We have a 
form for the reception and recognition of members 
entirely separate from the baptismal ritual. 
Your fraternal friend, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 

[The following- note of explanation of delay ac- 
companied the above letter. — Ed.] 

Cookeville, Tenn., September 3, 1907.— Dear Miss 
Yount: I beg-an the inclosed letter according* to the 
date it bears. Before having- time to finish it I went 



AN INTEKEST1NG COKKESPONDKNCK. 258 

away, and have been gone for a month. I have now 
completed it and send it to you to-day. I have re- 
ceived the first part of your answer to my criticism 
of your reasons for leaving- the Methodist Church. 
Will answer when they are all in. I will notify you 
when I get a letter that I cannot answer or that I 
think does not need an answer. Address me at Alex- 
andria, Tenn. I am only visiting- here for a few 
days. 

Yours respectfully, 

Geo. W. Nackxes. 
[The following- letter is self-explanatory and ex- 
plains why this discussion came to a sudden stop 
and who stopped it. But it does not reveal what 
brought such a sudden change over Mr. Nackles in 
not replying to Miss Yount's reply to his criticism 
of her leaving his doctrine. Prom the above one 
would think he was ready to reply as soon as pos- 
sible.— Ed.] 



LETTER FROM THE PASTOR TO MISS YOUNT. 

Alexandria, Term., September 30, 1907. — Dear 
Miss Yount: Your three letters replying- to my 
criticism of your reasons for leaving- the Methodist 
Church have been received. I deem it unnecessary 
to reply to them. The criticism is my argument. 
Further discussion would be going over the same 
ground ag-ain. It is customary to give the first 
speaker a rejoinder. I am willing- for you to have 
the last say. 

My main purpose in writing- to you was that you 
mig-ht have ah opportunity of looking- at these 
thing's from the standpoint of a person who offers 
you the same kind of proof for some things you do 
not believe as you offer for some things you do be- 
lieve. It is useless to argue with a person who will 
not. accept such proof. 

If you are satisfied and feel that you can do more 
good where you are, that is the place for you. No 
church likes to lose members. It is the duty of all 
people to do what they can in reasonable and right 
ways for their church. I would be glad to satisfy 
any dissatisfied Methodists and keep them in the 
church. I am glad to influence good people to join 
the Methodist Church, or to return to it if they have 
left it. I do not desire to dissatisfy people who 
were reared in other churches and get them to join 
with us. We are better off without people who be- 
lieve as you, unless we can show them that our way 
is scriptural. 

I have tried earnestly to maintain the Christian 



AN INTERESTING CORNBSPONDENCB* 260 

spirit and conduct my part of (lie discussion on the 
hig-h plane of a Christian gentleman and minister. 
"If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is 
none of his." Your friend, 

Geo. W. Nackles. 



LKTTKR FROM MISS YOUNT TO THE PASTOK 

Nashville, Tenn., November 27, 1907. —Mr 
George W. Nackles, Alexandria, Tenn.— Dear Sir: 
Yours of July 30 received. The note of explanation 
of delay which accompanied the article bears the 
date of September 3. In the note you acklowledge 
the receipt of the first part of my reply to your crit- 
icism of my leaving- the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
South, and promised to answer the same as soon as 
all of it was in. I waited for this reply so that I 
could answer both in one; but instead of receiving 
a reply to these articles, I received a notice of your 
declining- further discussion. I have been in no 
hurry to reply *ince receiving your last, partially 
because I thought it made no material difference, 
since you have ended your part of this discussion. 

I was surprised to know of your claiming- that the 
first speaker should have the closing speech. The 
negative always gets the closing speech in a relig- 
ious discussion. 

You should distinguish that which is intended 
for pleasantry from personal thrusts. Relative to 
your being an idiot, it will suffi.ce to say this is of 
your own coining, not mine. I never said one word 
about your beingf an idiot, and never thought of 
using or applying the term to you. It is a wrong 
spirit for one to seek to make a false impression 
To do so is not Christlike. It is your theory, and 
not you, that I am rooting up. I have, in a plain, 
logical way, showed up your weakness of theory, 
contradictions, and misrepresentations; and how 



AN INTEKESTING COKFESPONDHNCK 2f>? 

could you expect me to do otherwise? You opened 
this discussion, and therefore had the liberty of be- 
ginning- at any part of this subject you" pleased, 
and of following- any method of argument you 
might adopt. It also imposed upon me the neces- 
sity of following- your method, and confined me, in 
my replies, to such arguments as you introduced. 
Many of your arguments have been misrepresenta- 
tions; therefore it has been my painful duty to 
show these up. I have been exceedingly sorrj 7 
from th# beginning to have to meet this style of 
arguments, but duty demanded that I do it; and 
then, too. I had to answer such arguments as you 
introduced. Had I passed over your contradictions 
and misrepresentations, much of your argument 
would have been unanswered. I regret that duty 
demanded that I show up these things, but T could 
not see my faith and teaching misrepresented and 
my arguments answered by a bundle of contradic- 
tions and misrepresentations, and say nothing about 
it. 

You made no reply to my arguments against your 
tract. Assertions without proof is no argument. 
This brings me to one of your misrepresentations, 
which I am sorry to have to speak of. I had not 
■examined Webster on baptism at the time I wrote 
my reply to your tract, believing that you had rep- 
resented Webster correctly; but, to my surprise. I 
find on examining Webster that you failed to do so. 
This knocks both the foundation and building out 
of vour construction on sprinkling-. Had you quoted 
Webster in full, your readers could have seen a 



263 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

marked difference between the Greek words employed 
by inspiration and the modern abuse of them. 
They could have seen, too, that the Greek, from 
which we have the word in controversy, means to 
dip or immerse. Had there been any such meaning 
as "sprinkle" or "pour" in the Greek, surely 
Webster' would have found it. When defining 
the Greek, Webster gives it "to dip;" but in defin- 
ing the English, he says: "This is performed by 
immersion, sprinkling, or pouring." The English 
is a living, growing, and therefore a changing, lan- 
guage. The false practice of churches was in ex- 
istence when Webster wrote, and he was bound to 
define words as used when he wrote. Christ did 
not use the English, but the Greek; therefore, to 
get the teaching of Christ and the apostles, we 
must get the meaning of the Greek used by them. 
Webster and other Greek authorities tell us it means 
to dip. Had you quoted Webster in full, as you 
should have done, your readers would have seen 
the facts as they are. But this, I feel sure, you did 
not want, for it would have killed your theory. 
Perhaps this is the foundation for your saying: "I 
have tried earnestly to maintain the Christian spirit 
and conduct my part of the discussion on the high 
plane of a Christian gentleman and minister." I 
agree with your Bible quotation: "If any man have 
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 

To get the meaning of the Greek employed by in- 
spiration, I appeal to the Greek authorities and the 
practice of the apostles and first Christians. 

William Greenfield (N. T. Lex.) defines "bap- 



\H INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 264 

tizo" (from "bapto"): "To immerse, immerge, sub- 
merge, sink; in N. T., to wash, perform ablution, 
cleanse; to immerse, baptize, administer the rite of 
baptism." 

Thomas Sheldon Green (N. T. Lex.) defines 
"baptizo:" "Properly, to dip, immerse; to cleanse 
or purify by washing - ; to administer the rite of bap- 
tism, to baptize." 

John Groves (Classic and N. T. Lex.) defines 
"baptizo" (from "bapto," to dip): "Dip, immerse, 
immerg-e, plunge; to wash; to cleanse, purify; to 
baptize, depress, humble, overwhelm." 

I could more than double this testimony of Greek 
authorities, but they all agree with the above, and 
not one gives sprinkling* or pouring as a meaning 
of "baptizo." True, in the first edition of Liddt- 
and Scott the definition "to pour upon" was givei,; 
but as no passage could be found in all Greek liter- 
ature in which the word had this meaning, the words 
"to pour upon" were canceled by these pedobaptists 
and were left out of their second edition; and though 
several editions of that work have appeared, those 
words remain out to the present time. 

We now turn to the church historians and see the 
practice of the first Christians. 

Neander says: "In respect to the form of baptism, 
it was in conformity with the original institution 
and the original impDrtof the symbol, performed by 
immersion as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy 
Spirit, and of being entirely penetrated by the 
same." 

John Lawrence Von Mosheim gives the history of 



the different centuries separately. He te stifles thus: 
(.Century.; "In thiscentury baptism was adm nis- 
tered in convenient places, without the public ai<s< m- 
blies, and by immersing the candidates wholly in 

water." (Century 2 "Twice a year— viz., at EasteT 
and Whitsuntide — baptism was publicly administer- 
ed by the bishop, or by the presbyters, acting b\ his 
command and authority. The candidates foi it 
were immersed wholly in water, with invocation of 
the sacred Trinity, according to the Saviour's pre 
cept, after they had repeated what they called thr 
creed," etc. 

Gregory says: "The initiatory rite of baptism 
rrai performed by immersing- the whole body in the 
baptismal font, and in the earlier periods of Chris- 
tianity was permitted to all who acknowledged thr 
truths of the gospel," etc. 

The history of the Eastern Church by Dean Stan- 
ley is standard authority. He says: "There can be no 
question that the original form of baptism, and the 
very meaning of the word, was complete immer- 
sion in the deep baptismal waters, and that for at 
least six centuries any other form was little known, 
or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous illness, 
an exceptional and almost monstrous case." 

My next witness is Mr. George W. Nackles. 
In his tract he says: "If performed by im- 
mersion, one may be reminded of John the 
Baptist, preaching and baptizing b) the Jordan, 
preparing the people for the reception ol the 
Messiah; or of the Christ, submitting to this 
ordinance to fulfill all righteousness, when God the 



AN INTEBESTING COKKESPONDENCH 266 

Father spake those words of approval of his Son, 
and the Holj 7 Ghost descended in the form of the 
most innocent of all living- creatures. You may 
think of that treasurer of the Ethiopian queen, 
listening- to the g-ospel as he drove along* the way, 
stopping his chariot by 'a certain water,' receiving- 
baptism at the hands of Philip, who was caught 
away by tha Spirit of the Lord, that the eunuch 
saw him no more." (Pag-«s 23,24.) Touching- on 
affusion, this same author, in his tract, says: "It is 
a mistake to assert that affusion can be proven. 
Thatis neither Metbodistic nor biblical," (Page 
lf>. ) 

Thus we have seen that the lexicons say that 
"baptizo" means to immerse, that the church his- 
torians and Mr. Nackles testify that they immersed 
in the first ag-e of the church, and that Mr. Nackles 
also admits that "it is a mistake to assert that af- 
fusion can be proven." 

I now appeal to the Bible, which corresponds 
with the abov- m the subject under consideration. 

Scriptural baptism requires the following - : 

1. Water. "Let us draw near with a true heart 
in full assurance of faith, having- our hearts sprin- 
kled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water." ( Heb 10:22 ) "Can any man 
forbid witer, that these should not be baptized, 
which have receiwd t lie Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
(Acts 10:47.) 

2. Much water. "John also was baptizing- in 
iEnon near toSalim. because there was much water 
there: and they came, ;ind were baptized. 1 " (John 



267 AN INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCK 

3:23.) 

3. Cowing- unto the water. "As they went on 
their way, they came unto a certain water: and the 
eunuch said, See, here is water: what doth hinder 
me to be baptized?" (Acts 8:36.) "Then cometh 
Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be bap- 
tized of him." (Matt. 3:13.) 

4. Going- down into the water. "They went 
down both into the water, both Philip and the eu- 
nuch: and he baptized him." (Acts 8:38.) 

5. Coming up out of the water. "When they 
were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the 
Ivord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him 
no more: and he went on his way rejoicing-." 

Acts 8:39.) 
5. Washing* the body. "Let us draw near with 
a .rue heart in full assurance of faith, having- our 
_arts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our 
^odies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10:22.) 

7. Burial. "Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
his death? Therefore we are buried with him by 
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life. " (Rom. 
6:3,4.) 

8. Resurrection. "Buried with him in baptism. 
wherein also ye are risen with him through thr 
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead." (Col. 2:12.) 

Immersion requires: (1) Water, (2) much water. 
(3) coming unto the water, (4) going down into the 



A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 268 

water, (5) coming up out of the water, (6) washing 
the body, (7) burial, (8) resurrection. 

Sprinkling and pouring require: (1) Water, (2) 
water, (3) water, (4) water, (5) water, (6) water, 
(7) water, (8) not much water. 

By examining the above, one will see that im- 
mersion requires all the items that constitute scrip- 
tural baptism, and that sprinkling and pouring re- 
quire only one of the items — water — and not much 
of that. 

Having* seen that immersion was the practice of 
the first Christians, I now propose to show when 
affusion was introduced, and by whom. The first 
case I find mentioned in history is that of Novatian, 
A.D. 251. 

"Novatian was by one party of the clergy and 
people of Rome chosen bishop of that church, in a 
schismatical way, and in opposition to Cornelius, 
who had been chosen by the major part and was al- 
ready ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to 
Pabius, bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right, and 
shows that Novatian came not canonically to his 
orders of priesthood; much less was he capable of 
being chosen bishop; for that all the clergy and a 
great many of the laity were against his being or- 
dained presbyter, because it was not lawful (they 
said) for any one that had been baptized in his bed 
in time of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted 
to any office of the clergy." (Wall on "Infant 
Baptism," Vol. II. , pages 385, 386.) 

Mosheim, in his "Historical Commentaries," 
(Vol., I, page 62) gives the history of the baptism 



2b^ VN IWTUKKST1NG COK KKJ- PONDKJNCK 

t'f Novatian. He says: ,l He was seized with a 
threatening- disease and was baptized in his bed, 
when apparently about to die." He recovered from 
his illness and was subsequently made a presbyter 
in the church by Bishop Fabian, contrary to the 
whole body of priests and of a large part of the 
church. The authorsays: "It was altogether irreg- 
ular, and contrary to ecclesiastical rules, to admit a 
man to the priestly office who had been baptized 
in bed — that is, who had been merely sprinkled, 
and had not been wholly immersed in water, in the 
ancient method. For by many, and especially the 
Roman Christians, the baptism of clinici (so they 
called those who, lest they should die out of the 
church, were baptized on a sick bed) was account- 
ed less perfect, and indeed less valid, and not suf- 
ficient for the attainment of salvation." 

Since sprinkling* cannot be traced farther back 
than A.D. 251, I now ask: By whom was it intro- 
duced? I reply, it wastht Roman Catholic Church. 
On page 397, Dr. Wall quotes Wicklifte thus: "And 
the church has ordained that in case of necessity 
any person that is fidel [or that is himself bap- 
tized] may give baptism, etc. Nor is it material 
whether they be dipped," etc. 

Sir John Floyer: "The Church of Rome hath 
drawn short compendiums of both sacraments. In 
the eucharist they use only the wafer, and instead 
oi immersion they introduced aspersion." (Ibid., 
page 102.) 

In debate with J. S. Sweeney, Dr. J. B. Logan, 
a Cumberland Presbyterian debater, said: "The 



\N IXMTKKUSTIMG CUKKKSFUNDbMh 27(» 

church claimed the right to change the mode, but 
not the ordinance itself, and in that I agree 
with the church and can cheerfully admit it." 
("Sweeney and Logan Debate/' page 72.) 

Shepherd, in his "Handbook on Baptism," pages 
68, 69, quotes Calvin thus: "Whether the person 
baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether 
once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled 
with water, is not of -the least consequence: 
churches should be at liberty to adopt either accord- 
ing to the diversity of climate*, although it is evi- 
dent that the term 'baptize' means to immerse, and 
that this was the form used by the primitive 
church." 

M. Stuart, professor of sacred literature, Andover, 
says: "Must I show that we are not at liberty, 
without being justly exposed to the accusation of 
gross departure from Christianity, to depart from 
the modes and forms of the apostolic church in any 
respect? I have shown that all the churches on 
earth do depart from these, in their celebration of the 
Lord's Supper, and yet without any apprehension of 
being guilty of an impropriety, much less of being 
justly chargeable with the spirit of disobedience and 
revolt. . . . But what is the case in respect to bap- 
tism? Will nothing but the letter do here? So you 
may think and reason; but are jou not entirely in- 
consistent with yourself? . . . Mere externals must be 
things of particular time and place. Dress does not 
make the man. One dress may be more conven- 
ient, or more decorous than another; but neither the 
one nor the other is an essential p^rt of the person. 



271 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE- 

So the common feeling- of men has decided about 
most of the external matters pertaining- to religion, 
the world over. They have alwaj^s been modified by 
time and place, by manners and customs, and. they 
always will be. . . . Accordingly, long- before the 
lig-ht of the Reformation began to dawn upon the 
churches, the Roman Catholics themselves were 
gradually adopting- the method of baptism by sprin- 
kling or affusion, notwithstanding their supersti- 
tions and excessive devotedness to the usages of the 
ancient churches. . . . All this serves to illustrate 
how there sprung up, in the bosom of a church 
superstitiously devoted to ancient rights and forms, 
a conviction that the mode of baptism was one of 
the adiaphora of religion — i.e., something unessen- 
tial to the rite itself, and which might be modified 
by time and place, without any encroachment upon 
the command itself to baptize. Gradually did this 
conviction increase, until the whole Roman Catholic 
Church, that of Milan only excepted, admitted it. By 
far the greater part of the Protestant world have 
also acceded to the same views. Even the English 
Episcopal Church, and the Lutheran Churches, both 
zealous in times past for what they supposed to be 
apostolic and really ancient usage, have had no se- 
rious difficulty in adopting modes of baptism quite 
different from that of immersion." (Stuart on 
"Baptism," pages 169-172.) 

These quotations show that the Roman Catholic 
Church gradually left her devotedness to the usagvs 
of the ancient church and adopted sprinkling and 
pouring, and that the Protestant churches have 



A.N INTUKUSTING COKKfiSPONUBlNCH 272 

followed her example. Hence those who practice 
affusion can claim no higher authority for it than 
the Roman Catholic Church. They follow the ex- 
ample of the Roman Catholic Church, and not Christ 
and the apostles. 

You say: "Baptism is not the door into the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South." Here you and the 
presiding- elder clash. Mr. Clement, in his letter 
to me of August 15 [see pages 22-24 of this 
book], says: "That baptism is the ordinance of in- 
itiation into the church and the sign and seal of the 
new covenant now, as circumcision was formerly, is 
evident." After quoting- some scripture, he adds: 
"In these two passages baptism and circumcision 
stand for one and the same thing-, a symbol of spir- 
ituality in Christ, and of an initiatory rite into the 
church, or king-dom of God, the one of circumcision 
gradually falling into disuse as baptism took its 
place." Further on he says: "Those to whom he 
(Christ) spoke knew that the children were mem- 
bers of the Jewish church, and that millions of 
them had been admitted into the king-dom of God 
above; so that to them it meant they were members 
of that king-dom on earth, and so entitled to admis- 
sion to that visible kingdom, or church, by bap- 
tism. 1 ' This same author, in his letter to me of 
May 1 [see page b of this book], says: "The chil- 
dren go in with us by baptism." s 

Not only do you disagree with your presiding 
elder, but you clash with John Wesley, the found- 
er of the Methodist Church. Wesley says: "By 
baptism we are admitted into the church, and con- 



273 A.N INTERESTING CUKKESPONDBNCB 

sequently made members of Christ, its head." 
("Doctrinal Tracts," page 248.) Again, Wesley 
says: "Baptism doth now save us, if we live an- 
swerable thereto; if we repent, believe, and obey the 
gospel: supposing- this, as it admits us into the 
church here, so into glory hereafter." ("Doctrinal 
Tracts," page 249.) 

According to the presiding elder and Wesley, 
baptism is the door into tne church. I leave this 
for you, Wesley, and the presiding elder to settle. 

I invite your attention to the* following scriptures 
relative to the church: 

What the Church is Not. 

L. It is not a meetinghouse. "Howbeit the most 
High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as 
saith the prophet." (Acts7:48.) "God that made 
the world and all things therein, seeing that he is 
Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples 
made with hands." (Acts 17:24.) 

2. It is not a denomination , nor made up of different 
denominations. "Other sheep I have, which are 
not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they 
shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd." (John 10:16.) "For as we have 
many members in one body, and all members have 
not the same office: so we, being many, are one body 
in Christ, and everyone members one of another." 
(Rom. 12:4,5.) "But now are they many members, 
vet but one body." (I Cor. 12:20.) "There is one 
body, and one Spirit, even as ve are called in one 
hope of your calling." (Eph. 4:4) " And hf is the 
head of the body, the church: who is the beginning. 



V.N INTERESTING CORR ESHON DBNCh -I < 4 

the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he 
might have the pre-eminence." (Col. 1:18.) 
What the Church Is. 
It is the people of God. ''Know ye not that ye 
are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16.) "For we are mem- 
bers of his body, of- his flesh, and of his bones." 
(Eph. 5:30.) "And are built upon the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself 
biing* the chief corner stone " (Eph. 2:20.) "Unto 
the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that 
are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, 
with all that in every place call upon the name of 
Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." 
(iCor. 1:2.) "Now ye Philippi ins know also, that 
in the beginning- of the gospel, when I departed 
from Macedonia, no church communicated with me 
as concerning* giving* and receiving, but ye only." 
(Phil. 4:15.) 

Different Uses of the Word ' "Church" 
in the Bib lb. 

1. It is applied to the people of God in a house. 
"Salute the brethren which are in Lio'licea, and 
Nymphas, and the church which is in his house 
(Col. 4:15.) 

2. It is applied to the people of God in a city. 
"Now there were in the church that was at Antioch 
certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and 
Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene. 
and Manaen, which had been brought up with 
Herod the tetrarch, and Saul." (Acts 13:1.) 

3. It is applied to the people of God in a given 



275 \N INTERESTING CORFESPONDENCft. 

district. "John to the seven churches that are in 
Asia." {Rev. 1:4.) 

4. It is applied to the people of God everywhere 
in general. "Upon this rock I will build my church." 
.Matt. 16:18.) 

Bible Names for the Church. 

1. Collectively it is called "the church" (Eph. 
1:22), "the church of God" (lCor.l:2), "church of 
the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23), "household of God" 
(Eph. 2:19), "household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). 

2. Referring- to its existence in different localities 
— in a local sense — it is called "the churches [con- 
gregations] of Christ" (Rorn. 16: 16), "churches 
[congregations] of God" (1 Thess. 2:14), "the 
churches [congregations] of the saints" (1 Cor. 14: 
33), "the churches [congregations] of the Gentiles" 
(Rom. 16:4), "churches [congregations] of Gala- 
tia" (Gal. 1:2). 

3. The individuals composing it are designated 
as "members" (1 Cor. L2:27), "saints" (1 Cor. 1:2), 
"disciples" (John 15:8), "Christians" (Acts 1L:26; 
IPet. 4:16), "friends" (John 15:15), "children of 
God" (Gal. 3:26), "children of light" (Eph. 5:8). 

God has but one family, or body. "But now are 
they many members, yet but one body." (1 Cor. 
12:20.) All God's children are in this one family, 
or body. "But now hath God set the members ev- 
ery one of them in the body, as it hath pleased 
him." (lCor. 12:18.) This family dwells on earth 
and in heaven, but wears the same name in each 
place. "Of whom the whole family in heaven and 
earth is named." (Eph. 3:15.) The local congre- 




A.W INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 276 

gations (churches) and individual Christians con- 
stitute the one body, or church, in the universal 
sense. If one is a Christian, he is a member of 
God's family wherever he is because he is a child 
of God. There are but two familes — God's and 
Satan's. Every responsible person is in one or the 
other. If one can go to heaven outside of God's 
family, then he goes to heaven belonging- to the 
family of Satan. But since one cannot go to heaven 
so long- as he remains in the family of Satan, and 
since baptism is the door into the church, how can 
one get into the church or into heaven without it? 
To this John Wesley agrees. He says: "Baptism 
doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if 
we repent, believe, and obey the gospel: supposing 
this, as it admits us into the church here, so into 
glory hereafter." ("Doctrinal Tracts," page 249.) 
"By baptism, we who were 4 by nature children of 
wrath,' are made the children of God." ("Doctri- 
nal Tracts," page 248.) "But did our Saviour de- 
sign this should remain always in his church? 
This is the third thing we are to consider. And 
this may be despatched in a few words, since there 
can be no reasonable doubt, but it was intended to 
last as long as the church into which it is the ap- 
pointed means of entering. In the ordinary way, 
there is no other means of entering into the church 
or into heaven." ("Doctrinal Tracts," page 250.) 
In the universal sense, I have fellowship with all 
the saved — the one body — the church or family of 
God — because I am a Christian. I have a birth- 
right. In the local sense, I have fellowship with 



277 A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

all the saved — the church or family of God — wher- 
ever I am. Wherever and whenever I meet a child 
of God, he or she is my brother or sister in Christ, 
and we both belong - to the one family of God be- 
cause we are Christians. "But if we walk in the 
light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one 
with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son 
cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7.) "But ye 
are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the 
living- God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an in- 
numerable company of angels, to the general as- 
sembly and church of the firstborn, which are writ- 
ten in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to 
the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus 
the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood 
of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that 
of Abel." (Heb. 12:22-24.) 

I call attention to the fact that you failed to an- 
swer my questions, which were as follows: 

1. Will you introduce the scripture which shows 
the time when and the place where Christ or the 
apostles authorized or practiced infant baptism? 

2. If Christ did not give the Lord's Supper to 
the family of God when he instituted it, then to 
whom did he give it? Did he give it to the family of 
the evil one? 

3. Does the narrow road leading to heaven lead 
through the Methodist Episcopal Church, South? 

4. If it does, and since baptism is a door into the 
church, then how can a responsible person reach 
heaven without baptism and without going through 
said church? 



A.K INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 278 

5. If the narrow road does not lead through 
said church, then is not this church in the broad 
road? 

6. If a responsible person can reach heaven with- 
out going- through the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, then is not said church nonessential? 

I now g*ive a short summary of this discussion: 

1. The Methodist force, from the circuit rider to 
the bishop, utterly failed to introduce one scripture 
that shows the time when and the place where 
Christ or the apostles authorized or practiced infant 
baptism. 

2. Infant baptism cannot be traced further back 
than about the close of the second century, and, 
therefore, did not originate in the days of Christ 
and the apostles. It originated with man, and not 
with God. 

3. Baptism by immersion was the practice of 
Christ and the apostles. 

4. The Greek authorities define "baptizo," "to 
dip, immerse." 

5. Mr. Nackles himself admits that "it is a mis- 
take to assert that affusion can be proven." 

6. The first to be baptized by affusion was that 
of Novatian while sick in bed, A.D. 251. 

7. The Roman Catholic Church introduced 
sprinkling. 

8. Those who practice sprinkling follow the ex- 
ample of the Roman Catholic Church, and not 
Christ and the apostles. 

9. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was 
born in Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845, only fifty- 



279 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 

two years ago; therefore neither the apostles nor 
the first Christians belonged to it. 

10. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is 
a denomination and a granddaughter four times re- 
moved of {he Roman Catholic Church. 

11. The church or body of Christ was born on 
the day of Pentecost, A.D. 33, and is 1812 years 
older than the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 

12. The apostles and first Christians belonged to 
the church of Christ. 

13. It was bought by the blood of the Son of God. 
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all 
the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he 
hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28.) 

Since you decline further discussion, I suppose 
this closes our correspondence. Your failure to 
defend the Methodist doctrine by the Bible has 
confirmed me all the more in my faith. I have 
been greatly benefited by corresponding with the 
different preachers, for I believe more than ever 
that my faith and teaching are of God, and can- 
not be overthrown by man. 4t Ye shall not add 
unto the word which I command you, neither shall 
ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the 
commandments of the Lord your God which I com- 
mand you.'' (Deut. 4:2.) "What thing soever I 
command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add 
thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12:32.) "Be- 
hold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; 
a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the 
Lord your God, which I command you this day: and 




AW INTERESTING COKRESPONDKNCB 280 

a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of 
the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way 
which I command you this day, to go after other 
g-ods, which ye have not known." (Deut. 11:26-28.) 
"I testify unto every man that heareth the words 
of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add 
unto these thing's, Gol shall add unto him the 
plag^ues that are written in this book: and if any 
man shall take away from the words of the book of 
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of 
the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from 
the thing's which are written in this book." (Rev. 
22:18,19.) "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole 
matter: Pear God, and keep his commandments: for 
this is the whole duty of man." (Eccles. 12:13.) 

(Miss) Nora Yount. 



APPENDIX. 

The quotation from the American Bible Union 
on pag-e 95, the twelfth line from bottom, reads: 
"The loaf which we break, — is it a not participa- 
tion of the body of the Anointed one?" It should 
read: "The loaf which we break, — is it not a par- 
ticipation of the body of the Anointed one?'' 

The quotations in this book from "Doctrinal 
Tracts" are taken from the edition published in 
1845 "by order of the General Conference." But in 
later editions Wesley's article on baptism has been 
omitted and another article on baptism substituted 
for it. I make these statement* so the reader 
nay be able to defend the quotations herein made, 
from the adulterated editions of later dates. 

On pag-e 5 Mr. Clement says: "Several of the im- 
mersion papers have a standing- offer, so it is report- 
ed, of five hundred dollars to any one who will 
produce another meaning- of the Greek word 'bap- 
tizo' than that of 'immersion;' and yet they have 
never surrendered the money, though Greek lexi- 
cons are full of 'sprinkle' as one of its meanings." 
I know nothing- of the "standing- offer of five hun- 
dred dollars;" but I am satisfied, if such an offer 
is "standing-," that if Mr. Clement will produce a 
standard Greek lexicon that is "full of 'sprinkle' 
as one of" the "meanings" of "baptizo," the 
party or parties under obligations will turn the five 
hundred dollars over to him. It seems to me that 
this would be an easy way for some one to secure 
five hundred dollars, if such authority can be 
produced. 



A.JH INTERESTING COKKESFONDEJNCK 282 

On page 67 Mr. Nackles says: "If you give Bible 
evidence for all you believe or practice, and I fail 
to give one such evidence for one thing* which I be- 
lieve or practice, then I am defeated, on that one 
subject at least, and should come over to your side." 
Since Mr. Nackles admits that "it is a mistake to 
assert that affusion can be proven" and that "there 
is no scripture directly authorizing the practice of 
infant baptism," we wait to see if he will "come 
over" and thereby do what he admits he should do. 

Again, Mr. Nackles says: "There is not a great 
scholar, either from a literary or biblical stand- 
point, in the church of Christ." (Page 82.) Of 
course there is no wisdom and knowledge in the 
church of Christ — it's all on the other side. But 
while we may not be able to boast of our wisdom and 
knowledge, there is one thing we do rejoice over, 
and that is, "God hath chosen the foolish things of 
the world to confound the wise." (1 Cor. 1:27.) 

Mr. Nackles asks: "Why does not the church of 
Christ take a contribution and administer the com- 
munion every time they meet?" (Page LlL.) Of 
course "there is not a great scholar in the church 
of Christ," but there are plenty of people in the 
church of Christ who can answer this question. 
The reason we do not take a "contribution and ad- 
minister the communion" during "week-day meet- 
ings" is, the Spirit teaches that the first day of 
the week is the proper time to do these things. 
"Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples 
came together to break bread." (Act* 20:7.) 
"Upon the first day of the week let every one of 



283 A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

you lay by hiai in store, as God hatli proipered him, 
that there be no gathering's when I come." (1 Cor. 
16:2.) 

Mr. Nackles asks: "If the Jewish dispensation 
was a type of the Christian, what did circumcision 
typify?" (Page 113.) It typified the circumcision 
of the heart — the cutting- off or crucifying- the fleshly 
appetites and desires. "Circumcision is that of the 
heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." (Rom. 
2:29; see Rom. 6:6; Col. 2:11.) 

Mr. Nackles says: "One passag-e is often quoted 
ag-ainst infant baptism: 'He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not 
ohall be damned.' Children cannot believe, there- 
fore they should not be baptized. Apply the same 
reasoning to the latter part of the verse: Children 

nnot believe, therefore they shall be damned." 
( Page 114.) Our friend fails to distinguish the dif- 
ference between the "law" of God and the "word 
of the Lord." God through the prophet said: "Out 
of Zion shi.ll go forth the law, and the word of the 
Lord from Jerusalem." (Isa. 2:3.) All spiritual 
law is the "word of the Lord," but all the "word of 
the Lord" is not law. Promises and blessing's of 
God are included in the "word of the Lord," but 
constitute no part of the "law" of God. Law is 
something to be obeyed. Faith, repentance, and 
baptism are commandments to be obeyed, and are, 
therefore, included in the "law." Law is applied to 
responsible beings, and must be obeyed by this class 
if obeyed at all. Infants and idiots are not respon- 
sible creatures, and, therefore, do not come under the 



AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE. 284 

law — the commandments of God. They are includ- 
ed in the "word of the Lord" — the promises and 
blessings of God. Hence this class will reach heaven 
without faith, repentance, and baptism. 

Mr. Nackles throws out the following- challenge: 
"I do not think it would profit either of us; but if 
you are anxious for it, I will discuss this question 
with you: What kind of people were baptized in 
Bible times, Christians or sinners?" (Page 127.) 
This, together with other things, would have been 
brought out in the foregoing discussion had it not 
been for the fact that Mr. Nackles suddenly dropped 
out of this correspondence. The writer of this Ap- 
pendix is "anxious" to have the discussion, and is 
willing to have either an oral or written discussion 
on said proposition. He stands ready to reply to 
Mr. Nackles' affirmative arguments relative to his 
teaching on said proposition. He waits for further 
orders. A letter addressed to 5605 Morrow Road, 
West Nashville, Tenn., will reach him. 

Mr. Nackles in his tract says: "The writer of this 
book is not a Greek scholar and lays no claim to 
higher education." "All standard literary authors 
give immerse as one definition of baptize." ("The 
Mode of Water Baptism," pages 1,2.) If he is no 
Greek scholar, and since he admits that "all stand- 
ard literary authors give immerse as one definition 
of baptize," and since all standard Greek authorities 
tell us that the Greek word "baptidzo" is immer- 
sion and not one defines it to sprinkle or pour, then 
why and by what authority does Mr. Nackles deny 
immersion in Rom. 6:4 or elsewhere? Is all the 



285 AN INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

testimony of all the Greek scholars to be set aside 
simply because Mr. Nackles, who admits that he is 
not a Greek scholar, not even laying- any 'claim 
to higher education," says it does not mean immer- 
sion? Not only does he set aside the scholarship 
of the world, but he knocks the corner stone, John 
Wesley, from under the Methodist Church. It 
seems to me that one who is not a Greek scholar 
should humble himself on a lower seat instead of 
setting - his wisdom up against all the wisdom of 
all the Greek scholars of all the world. 

On pag-es 141, 148, Mr. Nackles takes the position 
that the jailer was baptized while in the prison, 
therefore sprinkled. But this is not in harmony 
with the Book. "When they had laid many stripes 
upon them, they cast them into prison, charging 
the jailer to keep them safely: who, having- received 
such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, 
and made their feet fast in the stocks." (Acts lb: 
23,24.) Here Paul and Silas are not only in prison, 
but are in the "inner prison." Let us watch and 
see when and where they go. After the earthquake 
the jailer "came trembling, and fell down before 
Paul and Silas, and brought them out" (Verses 
2V,3Q.J "Brought them out" from where? The 
"inner prison," of course. Where did they go when 
he "brought them out" of the inner prison? "And 
they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to 
all that were in his house." (Verse 32.) Here we 
learn that after the men of God were "brought out" 
of prison they went into the jailer's house, where 
the preaching was done. Now they are in the 



A.N INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCE 286 

jailer's house, and lie is not jet baptized. Now let 
us watch them again and see when and where they 
go. After the preaching, "he took them the same 
hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and 
was baptized, he and all his. straightway." (Verse 
33.) Where did he take them from, and where did 
they go this time? From the jailer's house, and 
to where there was sufficient water to ''wash their 
stripes," and to be * 'baptized, he and all his," im- 
mediately. Then the jailer was not baptized 
either while in the prison or in his house. There- 
fore Mr. Nackles' logic will not do. But the jailer 
and his two prisoners are yet at the place of baptiz- 
ing. Let us take notice once more of their travel. 
After the baptism of the jailer, where does he go 
with Paul and Silas? "When he had brought them 
into his house, he set meat before them, and re- 
joiced, believing in God with all his house." 
(Verse 34.) It is now clear that they went into the 
jailer's house twice — once from the prison before 
the baptizing and once after the baptizing — and that 
he was baptized after leaving his house the first 
time and before entering it the second time. Hence 
the argument that the jailer was baptized by sprin- 
kling while in the prison is without foundation. 

Mr. Nackles claims that "baptism isnot.the door 
into the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." 
(Page 257.) I wonder why he waited till the clos- 
ing of his arguments to repudiate the teaching of 
his brethren? Mr. Clement, the presiding elder, 
says: "In these two passages baptism and circum- 
cisicn stand for one and the same thing-, a symbol 



2S7 A.N INTERESTING CORRESPONDENCE 

of spirituality in Christ, and as an initiatory rite 
into the church, or congregation, or kingdom of 
God," etc. (Page23.) Mr. Lovellsays: "Repent- 
ance and faith are conditions of pardon, and bap- 
tism is a condition or door into the visible church." 
(Page 40.) Whether Mr. Nackles repudiates the 
teaching- of his brethren on this point because he 
really believes they are wrong", or whether he does 
it to avoid the force and logical conclusions of some 
of Miss Ybtmt's questions, he does not say. The 
reader remembers that Miss Yount kept the follow- 
ing- queries before Mr. Nackles: "(1) Does the nar- 
row road leading to heaven lead through the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, South? (2) If it does, and 
since baptism is the door into the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South, then how can a responsible 
being reach heaven without baptism? (3) If the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is not in the 
narrow road leading to heaven, then is it not in 
the broad road?" It is clear why Mr. Nackles did 
not answer these questions. He could not afford to 
say the narrow road leads through his church, for 
this would make baptism essential to entering 
heaven, since one cannot enter the church without 
it. Neither could he afford to say the narrow road 
is not in his church, for this would put said church 
in the broad road. Whether Mr. Nackles repudi- 
ates the teaching of his brethren to avoid the force 
and logic of these queries or because he believes 
they are in error does not help his case any, from 
the fact that one cannot get into said church without 
baptism. He must be baptized somewhere on the 



A J* LIS TERKSTIWG CORKKSPOIS IXEMCJi 288 

road, either before or after reaching the door of 
the church, before Mr. Nackles will recognize him 
as a member of his church. Hence his repudiation 
does not lift him over the mountain of difficulties. 
Once more: "There are only two standard trans- 
lations of the Bible in the English language — the 
Authorized and Revised. If we disregard these, 
we are at sea without chart or compass. We are 
in darkness with no hope of light. We must have 
a standard. I accept nothing that cannot be proven 
by these." (Page 257.) If Mr. Nackles will ac- 
cept nothing that cannot be proven by these trans- 
lations, he would better cease the practice of sprin- 
kling and infant baptism, for he admits that "there 
is no scripture directly authorizing the practice of 
infant baptism" and that "it is a mistake to assert 
that affusion can be proven." (Pages 69, 148.) 
These two translations were before our friend when 
he admitted that there is no authority for the prac- 
tice of sprinkling and infant baptism. They are 
still before him. Then why does he practice them? 
Yes, if we disregard the Bible, "we are at sea with- 
out chart or compass" — in darkness without hope 
of light; we must have a guide. This is good doc- 
trine; and if our Methodist friends would only put 
said teaching into practice, their teaching would 
not appear so contradictory. Mr. Nackles complains 
that Miss Yount showed up his teaching to a dis- 
advantage by attacking the less important parts 
and not noticing the best of it. The best of it is 
the truth, and, of course, she had no desire to inter- 
rupt this. The error was all she desired to dig up. 



2S U \N INTERESTING COKKESPONDENCH. 

How well she succeeded, the reader may be the 
judge. The physician cuts out the cancer that it 
may not corrupt the good flesh. This is what Miss 
Yount did. She cut out the spiritual cancer — the 
error presented by Mr. Xackles and his brethren. 
Often trees look ragged to the eyes of the beholder 
after their decayed limbs are pruned off. Mr. 
Xackles and his brethren were at sea without chart 
or compass during- this discussion — they were with- 
out a guide because they set the Bible aside on 
many points. That is. they tried to support theo- 
ries not found in the Bible. This is why their 
teaching: was shown up to a. "disadvantage." 
The Bible is the only guide that can give us spir- 
itual light, and to it we must go. It is a precious 
gift from heaven, given to us bv the Father of 
ligiits as a lamp to guide us through this dark 
world, into the home of the soul. 

The misfortune is, that few men are consistent 
with themselves, and while pleading- for one object 
they will reason from principles as undeniably 
plain and authoritative, which they lose sig-ht of 
and sometimes impugn when writing or reasoning 
for another object. Such is the influence of the 
will upon the understanding that net infrequently 
it presents the same subject, principle, or fact, in 
the most contradictory points of view. Tn the fore- 
going discussion Messrs. Clement. Lovell, and 
Xackles frequently state and contend for principles 
that subvert all their own reasonings on other mat- 
ters. This is a source of regret. 

C. E. W. Dorris. 



' 



One copy del. to Cat. Div. 



m 



IB !*W 



